Final PC18 Recommendation Report

BEFORE AN INDEPENDENT HEARING PANEL APPOINTED BY PORIRUA CITY COUNCIL
IN THE MATTER OF the Resource Management Act 1991
And
IN THE MATTER OF a hearing by Independent Commissioners appointed by the Porirua

City Council to consider and make recommendations in a report to
the Minister for the Environment on submissions to Proposed Plan
Change 18: Plimmerton Farm to the Porirua City District Plan
Final Report and Recommendations
22 December 2020
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
"Upane, kaupane
Whiti te rā!
A new sunrise,
A new day." 1
1. This whakatauki (proverb) encapsulates the final words of Te Rauparaha's famous haka
"Ka mate" which conveys a message of pragmatic defiance in the face of adversity,
reminding us that new opportunities can and often do emerge from overcoming the most
challenging situations in life. While the housing shortage in Porirua is not yet as dire as the
life or death predicament Te Rauparaha was facing, it is nevertheless a critical issue for the
district that must be addressed to meet the growing needs of existing and future generations.
2. Proposed Plan Change 18: Plimmerton Farm, to the Porirua City District Plan (PC18) seeks
to rezone 384ha of rural land to provide for urban development as part of a package of
housing opportunities intended to alleviate Porirua City's housing issues. But, through PC18
this development must first protect and enhance indigenous biodiversity and significant
natural areas both within the Plimmerton Farm Zone (PFZ); and the sensitive receiving and
downstream environments (in particular Te Ara Harakeke (Taupō Swamp) and Te Awarua-o-
Porirua (Porirua Harbour)).
3. Additionally, PC18 acknowledges the importance of Ngāti Toa's traditional relationship with
the PFZ, and provides opportunities for Iwi involvement in future aspects of the development,
including potential housing initiatives and the ability to exercise kaitiakitanga. Despite an
enduring sense of injustice over the original alienation of Plimmerton Farm from Iwi
ownership, Ngāti Toa supports PC18 and has indicated a clear commitment to work with
PCC and PDL to explore future opportunities via PC18. Ngati Toa's pragmatism in
determining to reconcile historical grievances and seek new opportunities through PC18
exemplifies the spirit of Te Rauparaha's haka. In a wider context, it could be said that PC18
heralds a new dawn of opportunity, setting a new standard for urban development in Porirua
(and wider), by taking the pragmatic approach of enabling development within the
environmental limits of the site and providing for environmental enhancement.
1
“Ka mate” was composed by Ngāti Toa chief, Te Rauparaha, who went to Te Rapa in around 1820 in search of allies but was instead
pursued by an enemy war party. He wound up taking refuge in a kumara pit near Lake Rotoaira. As the war party drew closer, Te
Rauparaha felt a growing sense of foreboding and mused on his fate; would it be life, or would it be death? Just as he thought his fate
was sealed, the war party moved away in another direction. Realising he had just had a lucky escape from certain death, Te
Rauparaha emerged from the kumara pit, triumphant, ascending into daylight, and life.
2
Final recommendation
Recommendation
4. This report is provided to the Minister for the Environment (Minister) in accordance with the
Streamlined Planning Process (SPP) for PC18.
5. We recommend that the Minister approves PC18 with the changes we have made (see
Appendix 1) for the reasons explained in our report and as further explained in the material
appended to it.
6. In our report and its appendices, we have addressed the key issues raised in submissions,
along with other matters raised and the documents required to be provided to the Minister in
accordance with the SPP.
Background
7. PC18 is seeking to rezone a 384ha parcel of land known as Plimmerton Farm from a Rural
Zone to a new Plimmerton Farm Zone (PFZ). The new zone is intended to provide for urban
development including housing, a retirement village, a commercial area, water sensitive
design to protect sensitive receiving waters and protection and augmentation of Significant
Natural Areas ("SNAs"), including Taupō Swamp (Te Ara Harakeke). Specific changes are
also proposed to City-wide provisions of the District Plan to apply to the PFZ.
8. PC18 is being processed in accordance with the Direction issued by the Minister under the
SPP in the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). An important factor to remember is that
PC18 is a proposed plan change. If the Minister accepts our recommendation PC18 will
provide the framework for future resource consent applications to subdivide and develop the
PFZ. Those applications would involve detailed investigations and resolution of a final
design / layout of the neighbourhood.
Context
9. Plimmerton Farm (and its surrounds, in particular Te Ara Harakeke (Taupō Swamp) and Te
Awarua-o-Porirua) is of historical and cultural significance to Ngāti Toa. Plimmerton Farm
comprises part of the Taupō 1 Block Reserve, one of three reserves set aside for Ngāti Toa
as a result of the Porirua Deed of Cession 1847. In the 1840s Taupō (now known as
Plimmerton) became the principle settlement for Ngāti Toa and commercial hub for the
whaling industry and flax trade. The area was fertile for garden cultivations and the wetlands
and harbour provided plentiful kai as well as resources such as harakeke.
10. By 1844 the forests covering Plimmerton farm were being cleared for agricultural use. The
main trunk railway was constructed on the western side of Taupō Swamp and SH1
constructed on the eastern side commencing in 1936. These works, along with agriculture
3
and the growth of Plimmerton (as well as the establishment of the Plimmerton Industrial
Estate) resulted in much of the Taupō Swamp complex being lost.
11. The 384ha Plimmerton Farm varies in elevation by approximately 200m; forming the existing
rural backdrop to Plimmerton (and beyond) with the upper slopes forming part of the
proposed Kakaho Special Amenity Landscape area. The site has been, and is presently,
extensively farmed (less intensively over the last few years) being largely pasture with an
area of pine forestry at the north-eastern corner. 40% of the site is steeper than 40 degrees
and it is deeply incised by waterways; the headwaters of which are largely (especially in the
main gully) covered by regenerating native vegetation. The site contains a number of
wetland areas, including two arms of the Taupō Swamp mapped by Greater Wellington
Regional Council (GWRC) and identified (along with the main Taupō Swamp complex) as an
outstanding water body in the Wellington Proposed Natural Resources Plan (PNRP).
12. Beyond the Plimmerton Farm site the surrounding areas include:
(a) Taupō Swamp main complex (an outstanding water body) to which the northern end
and the lower parts of the middle of the site drain);
(b) Taupō Stream (to which the southern and the upper parts of the middle of the site
drains) and for part of Precinct C the Kakaho Stream;
(c) Plimmerton township ((including the railway station) and the new adjacent
developments such as along Mo Street, older developments through Camborne North
and an industrial area (proposed to be rezoned mixed use));
(d) Te Awarua-o-Porirua Harbour which has significant ecological and cultural importance.
Pauatahanui Inlet (saltmarsh and tidal flats) is identified as having outstanding
indigenous biodiversity values. Te Awarua-o-Porirua Harbour - Pauatahanui Arm and
the Onepoto Arm are also significant habitats for nesting birds. This is important as all
the catchments within Plimmerton Farm drain into Te Awarua-o-Porirua Harbour via
either the Taupō Stream (for most of the site) or the Kakaho Stream.
13. Development of Plimmerton Farm for housing has long been planned, in particular through
the Porirua Development Framework 2009, the Porirua Northern Growth Area Structure Plan
2014 and the Porirua Growth Strategy 2019 (under which Plimmerton Farm is identified
within the northern growth area as providing 2,000 new household units from the year 2022).
Central resource management issue
14. The basis for PC18 is set out in the s 32 report which states "population projections
undertaken to inform the Porirua Growth Strategy 2048 show that the city will not have
4
enough housing [for Porirua residents] in 3 years' time." 2 The s 32 report identified the
resource management issue to be addressed by PC18 as "to provide housing capacity and
variety that meets the needs of existing and future Porirua city residents." 3 The s 32 report
considered that the existing operative District Plan provisions were inadequate to meet
PCC's statutory obligations.
15. It is clear to us from the s 32 report (including its attachments), and the various growth and
housing and capacity assessments, that there is a significant housing issue (supply and
affordability both for purchase and rent) in Porirua. For example:
(a) From June 2015 to July 2019 the value of houses across Porirua rose by 56%.
(b) MBIE's Housing Affordability measure ("HAM") was 84% in March 2018 (meaning that
84% of first home buyer households in Porirua had insufficient income left to meet
other expenses after meeting their mortgage payments);
(c) the HAM for renters in Porirua was 65% in March 2018;
(d) there has been no new land zoned for residential purposes in Porirua City for 15 years;
and
(e) Berl (2018) supports growth prospects with strong population growth forecast until
2048 that suggest between 5,800 and 10,000 new homes will be required in the
Porirua City District over the next 30 years.
16. More recent data provided before the hearing shows that property and rental prices in
Porirua continue to surge ahead, especially in the (previously more affordable) Eastern
Porirua wards. The 2020 median property price in Porirua City is $758,550.
17. The s 42A report commented:
308. As detailed in PCC Housing development Summary attached as Appendix 2, the

number of new dwellings required in Porirua City by 2048 is currently modelled as
being approximately 10,500 (a figure which has been used to inform the Council's Long
Term Plan work). Nearly 2,000 of those houses are required by the end of 2023.
309. When considering land availability, approximately 5,000 of the required dwellings
over the period to 2048 are forecast to become located in existing urban areas (through
infill development or comprehensive brownfield development), with the balance being
needed in greenfield sites.
2
S 32 report at [116].
3
5
18. The rapidly increasing housing affordability issue in Porirua City is compounding the
significant existing social and cultural issues associated with lack of housing. For example,
Ms Solomon on behalf of Ngāti Toa commented on the "imperative" that mana whenua want
(and can afford) to return to their 'tūrangawaewae' (ancestral land) to live. She stressed that
housing availability (and affordability) was a significant issue within Porirua; explaining the
challenges facing Ngāti Toa; the cost of housing and rent meaning that large numbers of
people living in a single dwelling is common. Porirua City has the highest percentage of
people living in homes with 5 or more people in New Zealand.
19. Plimmerton Farm is a medium-to-longer term development likely to be spread over 15-plus
years. That timeframe corresponds with that contained in the Porirua Growth Strategy
showing how PC18 would enable potential housing development over an extended period.
20. We accept the reports and evidence provided to us about there being a significant housing
availability and affordability issue within Porirua City. The information we have been
provided with indicates that those issues are rapidly getting worse. We also accept that this
is causing significant adverse social and cultural effects which must be urgently addressed.
We therefore accept the central resource management issue to be addressed by PC18 as it
is set out in the s 32 report.
21. However, we make it clear that PC18 is just one of a number of options that PCC has
identified (through its Porirua Growth Strategy 2019) to address housing availability and
affordability. The Porirua Growth Strategy proposes intensification of existing urban areas
(as sought by a number of submitters). But that will likely achieve no more than around half
the required housing supply. Additional greenfield developments are also identified in the
Porirua Growth Strategy. Further, Ngati Toa and the Crown are providing significant
investment in new housing in Eastern Porirua. We are satisfied that PC18 is required, as
part of a wide and robust package (including intensification) being promoted by PCC, to
respond to the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) and the
significant housing issues within Porirua.
NPS-UD
22. In July 2020 the Minister for the Environment published the NPS-UD. We agree with and
adopt the opening legal submissions of counsel for PCC which stated:
32. Both the NPS-UDC and the NPS-UD direct local authorities to provide sufficient
development capacity to accommodate projected demand in the short, medium and
long term. It is submitted that the urban development enabled by PC18 will assist it in
giving effect to the NPS-UD by appropriately responding to the urban growth and
housing capacity issues faced by the City. … Considering the form of development
6
envisaged by PC18, there is submitted to be clear justification for the plan change and
alignment with the NPS-UD.
23. Even without the NPS-UD we consider there is a pressing resource management issue to be
addressed by, and justifying, PC18. But, our need to give effect to the NPS-UD is a
significant additional justification for our recommendation to the Minister to accept PC18. In
particular, we consider that PC18 will significantly:
(a) support the concept of well-functioning urban environments (Objective 1 and Policy 1)
including by:
(i) providing a variety of densities, heights, housing typologies and locations of

precincts;
(ii) enabling Ngāti Toa to express their cultural conditions and norms (and Policy 9
requiring us to take into account the values and aspirations of Ngāti Toa for urban
development which we have done so);
(iii) Having a variety of sites that are suitable for different business sectors;
(b) assist PCC in providing at least sufficient development capacity to meet expected
demand for housing and business land over the short term, medium term, and long
term (Policy 2); and
(c) "be responsive to plan changes that would add significantly to development capacity
and contribute to well-functioning urban environments …" (Policy 8)
24. We agree with counsel that while neither the NPS-UD nor the NPS-FM is intended to prevail
over the other, given the highly directive policies in the NPS-FM "the NPS-UD must be
applied in such a way that the objective and policies of the NPS-FM are given effect." 4
Our approach
25. Our approach, consistent with submissions (and PC18 in the reply version of Messrs
Cumming and Anderson, as well as PDL's comments during the hearing), is to provide for
development of the site within its (and surrounding sites') environmental limits. In doing so
we have focused on enhancement of and protection for SNAs, receiving waters, wetlands,
and indigenous biodiversity across the site (and in its surrounding environments).
26. It became apparent to us early in the process that Plimmerton Farm is located adjacent to
some significant (and outstanding) ecological and cultural areas (being Taupō Swamp and
4
Closing submissions on behalf of PCC at [9]. This is very similar to the comment by counsel for the Director-General of Conservation
(by email dated 21 October 2020) that "the provision for urban development must be made within applicable environmental limits as
provided for in the NPS-FM 2020 (and the NES-F 2020)."
7
Te Awarua-o-Porirua). In addition, the site itself contains not only parts of Taupō Swamp but
also a number of SNAs and wetlands (with other areas potentially still to be identified). The
tenor of the s 32 report, the Minister's expectations, and submissions was on the need to
ensure these areas were protected. Indeed, for this reason in particular many submitters
were opposed to PC18.
27. As sought by some submitters, and we consider delivered through the reply version of PC18,
we provide in the planning framework for the highest possible standards for stormwater
management and to address the potential adverse effects of sedimentation. These aspects
are critical to managing onsite and offsite ecological and cultural effects and to provide for
Te Mana o te Wai in receiving waters.
28. Our approach is that protection of what presently exists is not the most appropriate long-term
sustainable management outcome for PC18 and the Plimmerton Farm site - it is to achieve
improved environmental outcomes than what presently exists. For example, Te Awarua-o-
Porirua Harbour and Catchment Community Trust sought to ensure that the downstream
effects of the development are positive and enhance the catchment and harbour ecosystem.
We consider that enhancement as an outcome is eminently feasible at and from this site and
is achieved by PC18 as we recommend.
29. Within those core parameters development of the site should be enabled and will provide
significant housing benefits for the district and a well-functioning urban environment. That
enablement, in our view, is required in order for us to give effect to the NPS-UD as well as
the RPS and to promote the purpose of the RMA for the reasons summarised above.
30. The critical aspects of the site relevant to the approach that we have adopted include:
(a) The size of the site and therefore:
(i) the ability for it as a whole to appropriately accommodate both development and
protection and enhancement of significant indigenous biodiversity (with roughly a
third of the site to be set aside for protection and enhancement);
(ii) providing space for the measures required to achieve the 'highest possible
standards';
(iii) enabling important components of the development to relocate if necessary (as

now proposed, to respond to potential issues should Precinct D prove to be
predominantly a wetland); and
8
(iv) along with location (in particular proximity to Plimmerton Train Station) and
topography, enabling greater intensification to be located within Precincts A
and B.
(b) That while the site contains a number of SNAs and wetlands (with more areas to be
identified through future mapping) it is apparent from the evidence, and our site visit,
that most (if not all) of these areas have been heavily modified and would significantly
benefit from the proposed protection.
(c) The same opportunity for environmental benefit (a reduction in sediment loads from the
site) exists in relation to sedimentation (and hence water quality).
(d) The ability to minimise changes to the hydrological regime through water sensitive
design and the provisions within Policy SW PFZ-P1 and setting aside roughly a third of
the site (and providing for revegetation) as well as providing 20m setbacks of
earthworks and development from waterbodies (and identifying the extent of riparian
planting and its management through SUB-IR-1). The full identification of wetlands
prior to development, and their protection as required through the NES-FW, will further
reduce hydrological effects.
(e) The ability for Ngāti Toa to be reconnected with their ancestral lands and taonga,
including the exercise of kaitiakitanga, involvement in monitoring and ability to utilise
natural resources for cultural purposes which contributes to inter-generational
knowledge transfer and the enhancement of mātauranga Māori.
(f) The ability, through the above factors, to provide for Te Mana o te Wai in relation to
receiving waters.
31. The most common concern raised to us during the hearing was that of uncertainty. Wetlands
had been identified, but not definitively. Not all areas of significant biodiversity had been
mapped (and studies, such as for lizards, were proposed in the future). There were
questions surrounding how much if any of the notified Precinct D area was a natural wetland
and how and when a pedestrian connection between the PFZ and the Plimmerton Train
Station might be available.
32. We have picked up on changes proposed to PC18 in the reply of Messrs Cumming and
Anderson to address these uncertainties. While we consider those proposals to be a good
step forward, greater emphasis within PC18 is required. We proposed in our draft report a
Strategic Objectives Chapter with a Strategic Framework Resource Consent (SFRC), to
occur prior to (or at the same time as) subdivision or development within the zone. Following
legal comments, we have removed the SFRC approach and adapted the provisions of PC18
to retain a robust planning and consenting framework that reflects the significant attributes of
9
the site (and its surrounding environments), addresses key uncertainties and enabling
development within the required environmental limits) while addressing the legal concerns
raised.
33. We have amended the Strategic Objectives and Policies Chapter with retention of policies
focused on Comprehensive land and Water Management and Spatial Integration. These two
policies are critical to provide strategic oversight throughout PC18 and to ensure a PFZ wide
approach is adopted. We accept the helpful suggestion by PDL (supported by PCC) to move
the Subdivision Chapter forward and have amended the Strategic Objectives and Policies
Chapter, removing the rule requirement and providing for the outcomes through the other
PC18 Chapters, in particular the Subdivision Chapter.
34. The provisions as we recommend them:
(a) Establish strategic and zone-wide objectives and policies;
(b) Establish policies applying to Comprehensive Land and Water Management across the
PFZ as a whole to avoid piecemeal, ad hoc or incrementally inappropriate outcomes
over time and in relation to Spatial Integration for subdivision consents addressing
ecological and locational matters for key zone elements;
(a) Require that all subdivision gives effect to the Strategic Objectives and Policies, in
particular to address ecological matters we consider necessary given the site (and its
surrounding) values (and the current state of knowledge) and that subdivision consents
consider the appropriateness of any proposed interim, staged or temporary
infrastructure to ensure it is provided in an integrated manner;
(b) Require appropriately detailed information on ecological matters to be included with

subdivision consent applications (detail on transport and commercial precinct design
matters, and connections are provided through the other relevant chapters);
(c) Utilise the Strategic Policies as matters of discretion throughout the plan to ensure that
they are considered when relevant; and
(d) Require appropriate provision of monitoring and land management provisions given the
scale and sensitivity of the site (and its receiving environments).
Conclusion
35. Overall, we consider significant positive ecological outcomes and housing, social, economic
and cultural outcomes can be achieved by adopting PC18 as we recommend. Our approach
gives effect to both the NPS-UD and the NPS-FM, the RPS and promotes the sustainable
management purpose of the RMA.
10
36. We thank all involved with this process for the efforts they have gone to in providing the
significant amount of information (including through the comments process) that has enabled
us to provide our recommendation to the Minister. Submitters who presented put a lot of
effort into their submissions before us. The issues are important, and values are deeply held
by many who submitted to us. We thank all involved in the hearing for respecting other
views and also for delivering their submissions within timeframes.
37. In particular Ms Smith (with Mr Warburton) provided a revised set of the provisions which we
found useful. QEII and Forest & Bird adopted the same approach with a joint set of the
provisions. Those provisions saved us considerable time and gave clarity as to wording
being sought.
38. We found the effort from the experts, including attending conferencing and in responding to
questions from submitters, was very constructive and useful. We thank the experts for that
and the clarity with which they presented to us. Particular mention is necessary of the efforts
of Messrs Cumming and Anderson, supported by the specialist experts, to identify and
develop common ground solutions. While often technical or minor in nature at the level of
the individual provision, cumulatively a significant and material change to the notified
provisions have eventuated through the reply version. This pragmatism has assisted us
greatly and has narrowed the points of disagreement significantly.
39. Finally, we were greatly assisted throughout the process by our hearing administrator, Maria
Joslin and thank her for her assistance.
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................2
REPORT TO THE MINISTER ON PROPOSED PLAN CHANGE 18: PLIMMERTON FARM TO
THE PORIRUA CITY DISTRICT PLAN .........................................................................................13
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................13
2. BACKGROUND .....................................................................................................................16
3. CONTEXT ..............................................................................................................................25
4. OUR APPROACH ..................................................................................................................27
5. KEY ISSUES ..........................................................................................................................39
6. CULTURAL EFFECTS ...........................................................................................................39
7. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ...................................................................................................45
8. ECOSYSTEMS AND INDIGENOUS BIODIVERSITY (CHAPTER 8) ......................................47
9. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT (CHAPTER 5) ....................................................................62
10. EARTHWORKS AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ....................................................................65
11. TRANSPORT .....................................................................................................................67
12. SUBDIVISION ....................................................................................................................74
13. PRECINCTS / URBAN DESIGN .........................................................................................77
14. LANDSCAPE ......................................................................................................................83
15. HOUSING SUPPLY AND DEMAND ...................................................................................86
16. INFRASTRUCTURE ...........................................................................................................97
17. COMPLIANCE AND MONITORING..................................................................................103
18. OTHER MATTERS ...........................................................................................................104
19. STATUTORY ASSESSMENT ...........................................................................................108
20. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION....................................................................111
SCHEDULE 1: LIST OF SUBMITTERS WHO ATTENDED THE HEARING ............................... 113
APPENDIX 1: PC18 - RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE HEARING PANEL TO THE MINISTER AS
TO THE TEXT OF PC18 .............................................................................................................115
APPENDIX 2: SUMMARY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS..........................................................116
APPENDIX 3: SECTION 32 EVALUATION REPORT ................................................................117
APPENDIX 4: SECTION 32AA EVALUATION REPORTS .........................................................118
APPENDIX 5: SUMMARY REPORT ON THE MINISTER'S EXPECTATION ............................. 119
APPENDIX 6: LEGAL FRAMEWORK ........................................................................................123
APPENDIX 7: JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE....................................................................................125
APPENDIX 8 – COMMENTS RECEIVED ON DRAFT SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE ............ 133
12
REPORT TO THE MINISTER ON PROPOSED PLAN CHANGE 18: PLIMMERTON FARM TO
THE PORIRUA CITY DISTRICT PLAN
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Proposed Plan Change 18: Plimmerton Farm, to the Porirua City District Plan (PC18) was
initiated by Porirua City Council (PCC) and seeks to rezone a 384ha parcel of land within the
Porirua District, known as Plimmerton Farm (Lot 2 DP 489799), from Rural Zone to a new
Plimmerton Farm Zone (PFZ) (which includes the Plimmerton Farm Precinct Plan identifying
4 Precincts, A – D, in the notified version).
1.2 The Plimmerton Farm Zone is intended to provide for urban development including housing
(of varying densities), a retirement village, a commercial area, water sensitive design to
protect sensitive receiving waters and protection and augmentation of Significant Natural
Areas (SNAs), including wetlands that form part of the outstanding Taupō Swamp Complex.
Specific changes are also proposed to City-wide provisions of the District Plan which apply to
the proposed PFZ. 5 Overall PC18 has been initiated to provide a framework to guide
resource consent applications by landowners and developers for subdivision and
development proposals that integrate development with environmental protection and
enhancement.
1.3 In October 2019 PCC applied to the Minister for the Environment (Minister) to use the
Streamlined Planning Process (SPP) for PC18. On 6 May 2020 6 the Minister directed that
PC18 be progressed using a SPP process.
1.4 In accordance with the Minister's Direction of 6 May 2020, PCC is to submit to the Minister a
written report that:
(a) shows how submissions have been considered and the changes (if any) recommended
to PC18;
(b) includes how the panel gave particular regard to the s 32 evaluation report and any
additional report prepared under s 32AA (as may be relevant); and
(c) provides the other written reports and documents required by cl 83(1) of sch 1 of the
RMA for the Minister's consideration.
1.5 After consideration of our report the Minister may approve PC18, refer it back to the Council
for further consideration, or decline it. 7
5
The PFZ is subject to the City-wide provisions of Chapters A, B, K, L, NU and Z of the District Plan.
6
The date of the Gazette notice.
7
RMA, sch 1, cl 84(1).
13
1.6 We, David Allen (Chair), Miria Pomare, Nicki Williams, Ian Munro and Dr Martin Neale, ("the
Hearing Panel") have been appointed by the Council as Independent Commissioners to
provide the Minister with the report required in his Direction.
1.7 The purpose of our report is to provide the Minister with our recommendations applying the
legal requirements and all the relevant information required to enable him to make his
decision. Under cl 83(1) of Schedule 1 of the RMA we are required to provide to the Minister
the following:
(a) PC18, drafted to reflect our recommendations (Appendix 1);
(b) a summary report of the written submissions (Appendix 2);
(c) an issues and recommendations report showing how submissions have been
considered and any modifications made to PC18 in light of the submissions (Sections 4
to 18 of our report);
(d) the evaluation reports required by s 32 (Appendix 3) and s 32AA (Appendix 4) with
our additional s 32AA assessments being contained in Sections 4 to 18 of our report;
(e) a summary document showing how the Council (and us as the Hearing Panel) has had
regard to the statement of expectations (Appendix 5); and
(f) a summary document (Sections 2 and 19 of our report) showing how PC18 complies
with the requirements of—
(i) any relevant national direction; and
(ii) the RMA or regulations made under it.
1.8 We have also appended for convenience:
(a) the legal framework (Appendix 6);
(b) our response to the jurisdictional issue raised by Forest & Bird and QEII (and a number
of submitters) regarding the memorandum of understanding between PCC and PDL as
well as associated comments relating to the experts who provided evidence to us
(Appendix 7); and
(c) comments received on the draft report and our brief response (Appendix 8).
14
1.9 In making our recommendation we have applied the legal framework as required and had
regard to the Minister's expectations, 8 as set out in his Direction, that PC18:
(a) contributes to providing sufficient opportunities for the development of housing and
business land to meet demand, and which will provide choices to meet the needs of
people and communities and future generations for a range of dwelling types and
locations, working environments and places to locate businesses;
(b) provides for the protection of SNAs, significant natural features, sites of ecological
value, and the maintenance of indigenous vegetation and indigenous biodiversity; and
(c) ensures that future development will be undertaken in a manner that recognises the
sensitive receiving and downstream environments, such as the Taupō Swamp,
including minimising changes to the hydrological regime.
1.10 The Council has also ensured that in undertaking the SPP it has complied with the Minister's
expectations. 9
1.11 For the reasons expressed in our report (and Appendix 5) we are satisfied that PC18 will
meet the Minister's expectations.
1.12 Our report:
(a) provides a summary of:
(i) the background leading to the notification of PC18; and
(ii) the key issues raised in submissions (and during the hearing);
(b) describes the hearing process that was followed; and
(c) explains in the reasons for:
(i) our recommendations on the key issues; and
(ii) our recommended changes to PC18 (Appendix 1).
1.13 In providing our report, we have considered all the background material to PC18, the s 32
and s 32AA evaluation reports, all of the submissions received, all evidence received, and
submissions of the submitters given at the hearing, the s 42A report by the Council's
8
As required under cl 82(1) of sch 1 of the RMA. See also Appendix 5.
9
As set out at d. – h. of the Statement of Expectations. The Council has engaged with Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangatira and Waka Kotahi
NZ Transport agency throughout the SPP. It has appointed the Panel with careful considerations, including the appointment of Miria
Pomare who has knowledge of tikanga Māori and mātauranga Māori. The process was clearly set out on the following website, which
also includes all submissions and further submissions https://poriruacity.govt.nz/your-council/getting-involved/public-
consultation/proposed-plan-change-18-plimmerton-farm/
15
reporting officers, and all other relevant documents (including legal submissions) and
matters. We have also undertaken our own additional s 32AA analysis when required.
1.14 Our recommendation to the Minister is that PC18 be approved with modifications (as shown
in Appendix 1), and that the submissions be accepted, or accepted in part, or rejected in
line with our overall recommendation.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 The background to PC18 is explained in some detail in the s 32 report. 10 As an overview,
Porirua is facing an undersupply of housing, which can be attributed in part to a shortage in
residential land supply that has occurred as existing vacant residentially zoned greenfield
land has been developed. The housing shortage has resulted in increasing rents and house
sale prices, with house prices increasing at a rate significantly higher than those for New
Zealand and the Wellington Region.
2.2 Plimmerton Farm is owned by Plimmerton Developments Limited (PDL). It has long been
identified as a growth area for Porirua City. In December 2014 the Council adopted the
Porirua Northern Growth Area Structure Plan as a strategy for guiding future long-term urban
growth between Camborne and Pukerua Bay. Plimmerton Farm is identified in the structure
plan as suitable for greenfield growth. We agree with the s 32 report 11 that the existing
zoning is incompatible with the proposed level of development of Plimmerton Farm through
PC18.
2.3 In March 2019 the Council published the Porirua Growth Strategy 2048. The strategy
identified that there is insufficient supply to meet demand in the medium and long term, and
that Porirua City only has enough appropriately zoned land to accommodate the next three
years of growth. Over the next 30 years Porirua City is projected to grow by between
10,000 - 12,000 people under medium growth projections, and just under 30,000 people
under high growth projections. The new spatial framework identifies Plimmerton Farm as
being within the Northern Growth Area and anticipates it providing 2,000 new household
units, with the first dwellings being provided from 2022.
2.4 The Council has an obligation under the National Policy Statement for Urban Development
2020 (NPS-UD) to ensure sufficient development capacity to meet expected demand for
housing. While rezoning of land through the District Plan Review will, in time, address this
shortfall, advancing PC18 ahead of the District Plan Review will enable the Council to meet
its obligations under the NPS-UD to ensure there is housing to meet projected demand in the
medium term (3 – 10 years).
10
At [116] – [166].
11
At [264].
16
PC18 as notified, submissions received and prehearing process
2.5 PC18 was notified on 20 May 2020. All the relevant information in relation to PC18 can be
found on PCC's website at https://poriruacity.govt.nz/your-council/getting-involved/public-
consultation/proposed-plan-change-18-plimmerton-farm/. Submissions closed on 2 July
2020 and further submissions closed on 28 July 2020. A total of 138 submissions and
16 further submissions were received. The names of the submitters, the issues raised, and
the changes sought in the submissions are set out in the summary of submission report
appended as Appendix 2 to this report.
2.6 On 6 August 2020 we released our Minute 1 setting out directions for the hearing
preparation. In accordance with that Minute:
(a) PCC had appointed a friend of submitters. We thank Ms Emily Bayliss for her work
assisting submitters through the process;
(b) there was pre-hearing conferencing for lay submitters on 16 and 17 September 2020.
Mr Jones provided a report to us dated 28 September 2020 (we thank Mr Jones for his
efforts in facilitating the conferencing and drafting the report);
(c) there was expert conferencing for ecology (21 September 2020), engineering
(22 September 2020) and planning (25 September 2020). We thank the experts for the
efforts put into conferencing and Mr Jones for facilitating the conferencing; and
(d) there were written questions asked by submitters of the experts and written responses
were provided by the following experts: Mr Cumming and Mr Anderson; Mr Osborne;
Mr Goldwater; Dr Blaschke; Mr Blyde; Ms White; Ms Williams; Mr Whittaker; Mr Wilson;
Mr Smaill / Ms Matthews; Ms Sitarz; Mr Guerin; Dr Afoa; and Dr van Meeuwen-
Dijkgraaf and we thank all those experts for the time taken to respond to the questions
raised. We have read and considered the questions and responses in preparing our
report and recommended provisions.
2.7 We undertook a site visit on 9 September 2020 during which we:
(a) viewed the site from various points along SH1;
(b) viewed and entered onto the site from Mo Street (while also looking at the Plimmerton
Heights subdivision) giving us a good view over Precinct A and down onto Precinct D
and some of the newly fenced SNA areas;
(c) drove through Camborne and also drove down to the inlet to view Grays Farm site
opposite the Camborne walkway, and up to the water reservoir on Pope Street (to look
across to Plimmerton farm);
17
(d) accessed the site from the 'red shed' entrance and drove and walked up the main track
to the ridgeline, giving us a good view of precinct B and of the various parts of
Precinct C;
(e) drove down to the weigh station, accessed the site slightly south of there and walked
over and across Precinct D and along the farm track adjacent to the SNA048 wetland.
We also viewed a remnant wetland (within the same SNA) to the south east;
(f) visited the Plimmerton Station park and ride facility and the underpass to the station
(noting the domain and Taupō Stream);
(g) visited Plimmerton village and, noting School Road, drove up Motuhara Road and onto
The Track where we looked back across the valley to Plimmerton farm before driving
back down and along Moana Road to Hongoeka,
(h) drove along Airlie Road and up Coroglen Rise to look back across to Plimmerton Farm
from the northern aspect before rejoining SH1 by the cemetery; and
(i) drove south and visited the industrial area at the southern end of Taupō Swamp before
walking a short section of the southern end of the Te Ara Harakeke pathway (and
looking over the southern end of the swamp).
The Hearing
2.8 The hearing of submissions took place at the Porirua City Council Chamber from
12 - 16 October 2020.
2.9 The persons who attended the hearing and presented submissions and / or evidence are
referred to in Schedule 1 attached to this report. The key issues that we consider were
raised in the submissions, and which were the main focus of evidence and submissions
presented at the hearing, are:
(a) cultural effects;
(b) ecosystems and indigenous biodiversity;
(c) stormwater management;
(d) earthworks and sediment control;
(e) housing supply and demand;
(f) landscape;
(g) transport;
18
(h) compliance and monitoring; and
(i) other matters (including urban design, infrastructure, amenity / social effects on existing
residents and communities).
Jurisdictional matter
2.10 On 27 August The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society (Forest & Bird) and The Queen
Elizabeth the Second National Trust (QEII) filed a memorandum ('joint memorandum')
informing us as to the existence of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between PCC
and PDL. A number of submitters raised the issue of the memorandum in their submissions
and before us during the hearing. Our full consideration is set out in Appendix7.
2.11 In summary, the core issue for Forest & Bird and QEII as succinctly set out in the joint
memorandum is that PCC "will not be neutral and independent in performing its role as a
planning authority in relation to Plan Change 18, and will favour one submitter (PDL) over
other submitters." 12 According to Forest & Bird and QEII that places PDL in a privileged
position, creates a financial incentive for PCC to support PDL's position and creates a breach
of natural justice. The concern also remains, despite our appointment as the Hearing Panel,
as it has, in Forest & Bird's and QEII's submission, "tainted" 13 the information (including the s
42A Report and evidence) we have received from PCC.
2.12 We note Forest & Bird and QEII's underlying concern is the protection of the significant
Taupō Swamp (and we would also add protection of the SNAs and wetlands on the
Plimmerton Farm site itself). That concern was raised by numerous submitters and is
accepted through PCC's s 42A report and in its supporting evidence, as well as in expert
conferencing. Overall, it comes down to how those environmental protections are
implemented and, as mentioned, the experts engaged by PCC have substantially amended
the proposed provisions in response to submitter and other expert input. We are comfortable
with the evidence we received on behalf of PCC's independent experts and see no evidence
that the MOU has adversely influenced the quality or content of the evidence and material we
have received, nor affected our ability to comply with all statutory requirements.
2.13 Further, while the drafting of the MOU could have potentially been worded more tightly to
avoid the arguments that have been raised, in our view:
(a) overall:
(i) we do not interpret it as providing a financial interest for PCC in the outcome of
PC18; and
12
At [6].
13
At [15].
19
(ii) we consider that the regulatory functions in relation to the district plan are
appropriately carved out within the MOU; and
(b) we do not have the jurisdiction to direct the Council to set aside the MOU nor to direct it
as to how it will exercise its functions in relation to PC18.
2.14 We therefore do not make the directions sought by Forest & Bird and QEII.
Late submissions
2.15 Four late submissions we received on PC18. 14 We agree with and adopt the reasons
provided in the s 42A report 15 that the failure to comply with the submission timeframe can
be waived and we accept those submissions accordingly.
Expert witnesses
2.16 A number of other matters were also raised by nearly all counsel before us in relation to the
role and independence of expert witnesses. The Panel is highly cognisant of the important
role of expert witnesses and the Environment Court Code of Conduct which we required (in
our Minute 1) all experts to abide by. We have borne in mind the comments by counsel for
PDL 16 on assessing expert evidence that an expert witness must be detached, disinterested,
impartial and non-partisan and we have considered that in relation to all experts in coming to
our recommendations on those matters, along with the assistance and candour with which
the witnesses presented and answered our questions.
Draft report process
2.17 In accordance with the Minister's direction under clause 78 of Schedule 1 of the RMA we
provided a draft version of our report to all submitters on 2 December 2020.
2.18 We received a number of responses 17 and thank submitters and PCC for the positive and
constructive manner with which they were provided (and in particular we thank PDL and PCC
for providing drafting approaches to address the legal concerns they had raised). Appendix
8 sets out the comments received and our brief responses. Specific responses, especially in
relation to the vires of the approach we adopted in our draft report, are addressed in the body
of our report. We have amended the provisions of PC18 according to our recommendations
as attached in Appendix 1.
14
Mr Ashby, Mr Botha, Director-General of Conservation and Mr Widdowson.
15
At [44] – [46].
16
Legal Submissions on behalf of PDL at [59] – [69].
17
With PCC's response being provided on 15 December 2020.
20
Statutory framework and considerations
2.19 Our recommendations must accord with the statutory framework set out in the RMA and
summarised in various Environment Court cases, most recently in Colonial Vineyards v
Marlborough District Council. 18
2.20 In Appendix 6 we set out the legal framework we have applied, adopting the matters set out
in the s 32 report, 19 Appendix 2 to Ms Sitarz's evidence, the opening legal submissions on
behalf of PCC and the legal submissions of Plimmerton Developments Limited (PDL).
Further, as a SPP, our recommendation must have regard to the Minister's statement of
expectations prepared under s 78(3)(b).
2.21 One matter that arose following the s 42A report, in evidence and during the hearing was the
role of PCC in relation to the management and protection of wetlands, stormwater
management and earthworks. These are areas where there was overlap of functions (under
ss 30 and 31) between PCC and GWRC. Key to this is the function of PCC to have
"objectives, policies, and methods to achieve integrated management of the effects of the
use, development, or protection of land and associated natural and physical resources of the
district."
2.22 For stormwater we accept the position advanced by counsel for PCC, 20 that while PCC has a
role in managing the effects of the use and development of land, generally the management
of water quality and quantity falls within the jurisdiction of GWRC. However, as counsel
stated, land use can alter contaminants (and their concentrations) and also alter stormwater
levels and flow. We agree that PCC can, and should, manage the land use element of these
effects through PC18 (that is, any rules must be directly linked to the regulation of a land use
activity). We consider that PC18, as advanced by PCC (and amended through the process
and recommended by us), achieves that outcome.
2.23 For earthworks, in response to evidence from GWRC21 over consistency, PCC proposed
amendments to the earthwork provisions to avoid consenting duplication for earthworks over
3,000m2. But PCC has retained a role related to the effects of the use of land for earthworks
less than 3,000m2 and also for larger earthworks related to the effects of land use within its
jurisdiction (namely amenity, visual, landscape and traffic matters). We agree with counsel
for PCC 22 that the approach adopted is appropriate given PCC's jurisdiction and the need to
manage effects on the environment.
18
Colonial Vineyards v Marlborough District Council [2014] NZEnvC 55 at [17]. Endorsed as the latest summary in Edens v Thames-
Coromandel District Council [2020] NZEnvC 013 at [10]. The list of matters from the Colonial Vineyards decision was attached in
Appendix 1 of PCC's opening legal submissions.
19
Section 32 report at paragraphs 19-115.
20
Opening legal submissions at [91]-[104].
21
Mr Smaill.
22
Opening legal submissions at [107].
21
2.24 PCC's functions in relation to wetlands was a key issue during the hearing. This arose from
the position adopted in the s 42A report that wetlands not be identified within PC18 (and be
managed by GWRC) and that the planning maps show terrestrial SNAs only. This would
reflect a "complementary management framework" 23 with PCC management of SNAs and
GWRC management of natural inland wetlands.
2.25 This approach resulted in detailed responses from experts and legal counsel for submitters
(including in the planning JWS and rebuttal evidence and a change in position from PCC (to
integrate with GWRC)). Counsel for PCC, in opening submissions, acknowledged the
difficult overlap in functions and in providing for integrated management of natural resources,
and accepted that PCC has a role, but that it needs to stick within it and avoid unnecessary
or inconsistent duplication. Counsel raised the difficulty in identifying (and therefore
mapping) wetlands. We agree with this, and consider having listened to extensive evidence
on the matter that has got even more challenging with the introduction of the NPS-FM (which
replaced the NPS-FM 2014 (amended 2017) with new policy direction and requirements).
2.26 Suffice to say, for this section on the legal framework we accept, and have followed, the
approach set out in the legal submissions on behalf of QEII that "it is part of the Council's
functions to control effects of subdivision and urbanisation on indigenous biodiversity
including wetlands."24 Again, however, there is a critical integration issue with GWRC. Our
approach to achieving the position, as stated by QEII, and ensuring integration with GWRC
and PCC (with PCC 'sticking to its knitting'), and managing the issues regarding the current
lack of detailed mapping are set out in Sections 4 and 8. In particular the Strategic
Objectives and Policies and the Subdivision Chapter provisions (Section 4) will ensure the
identification and mapping of natural wetlands occurs at the time of subdivision.
Planning framework
2.27 The relevant planning documents in relation to PC18 are the: 25
(a) NPS-UD;
(b) National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 (NPS-FM);
(c) New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS);
(d) National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation 2011 (NPS-REG)
(e) National Planning Standards;
(f) Regional Policy Statement for the Wellington Region 2013 (RPS);
23
S 42A report at [125].
24
Legal Submissions for counsel for QEII at [16].
25
We were also referred to the NES-FW in relation to wetlands (including the role of PCC).
22
(g) the operative Regional Plans and the proposed Natural Resource Plan (PNRP); and
(h) the operative District Plan.
2.28 The above documents, and their relevant provisions, were set out in the s 32 report 26 (noting
the proposed versions of the NPS-UD and NPS-FM were considered at that time). Relevant
plans and provisions were also referred to in the s 42A report (and rebuttal evidence, by
Messrs Cumming and Anderson), the expert planning evidence including Mr Smaill (the
PNRP provisions), Mr Guerin (in particular the NPS-FM, policies 23, 24 and 47 of the RPS,
and policy 39 of the PNRP), Ms Sitraz (a comprehensive assessment of the relevant
documents at paragraphs 7 - 15.3 9 and also Appendix 4) of her evidence), Mr Christie
(including the NPSFM, RPS objective 12 and policies 15, 23 and 61) and Mr Warburton
(including Policy 39 of the PNRP and Policies 23, 24, 25, 26, 29 and 43 of the RPS)), and
expert evidence (for example Dr van Meeuwen-Dijkgraaf (PNRP and in particular its
Schedules)). We adopt those assessments as to the relevant planning provisions and do not
repeat them in full here.
2.29 While we have not listed all the relevant planning provisions we have considered, the
different requirements of the legal framework as appropriate (as set out in Appendix 6), the
above documents, and their relevant provisions have been applied in coming to our
recommendation. Specific planning provisions are mentioned where necessary in our report.
National Policy Statements
2.30 Brief comment is required on the NPS-UD and NPS-FM. We must give effect to (i.e.
implement) both the NPS-UD (which came into force in July 2020) and the NPS-FM (which
came into force on 7 September 2020).
2.31 Put simply, the NPS-UD "directs local authorities to provide sufficient development capacity
to accommodate demand in the short, medium and long term." Development capacity is
defined as zoning to support housing along with adequate infrastructure. A key outcome is
to enable more people to live in "well-functioning" 27 urban environments. PCC is a tier 1
local authority. 28
2.32 Further detail on the NPS-UD is provided in Section 15.
2.33 Again, put simply, the NPS-FM introduces the 'fundamental concept' of Te Mana o te Wai
which:
26
At [29] – [115]. See also relevant parts of the various technical reports appended to the s 32 report
27
Policy 1 of the NPS-UD.
28
Appendix to the NPS-UD.
23
"refers to the fundamental importance of water and recognises that protecting the
health of freshwater protects the health and wellbeing of the wider environment. It
protects the mauri of the wai. Te Mana o te Wai is about restoring and preserving the
balance between the water, the wider environment, and the community." 29
2.34 We asked counsel how the two new NPSs should be read together. Counsel for the
Director-General of Conservation and PCC agreed that neither NPS is intended to prevail
over the other. Counsel for QEII, the Director-General of Conservation and PCC told us that
given the highly directive policies in the NPS-FM "the NPS-UD must be applied in such a way
that the objective and policies of the NPS-FM are given effect." 30 We agree with counsel
with that approach and adopt it in our recommendations. 31 We also agree, subject to the
changes to PC18 we recommend, with counsel for PCC that: 32
"It is submitted that it is possible for the more general directives in the NPS-UD to be given
effect to in a way that still allows for the more specific environmental protection directives in
the NPS-FM to be given effect to. That is reflective of the approach adopted in the latest
version of PC18, in that it enables appropriate urban development, within limits. …".
2.35 As we set out below, development within limits was the approach proposed by many
submitters; Mr Gillies on behalf of PDL, and by PCC. It is also the approach we adopt. The
discussion during the hearing (and in submissions) is where the limits should be set, and we
address that below.
2.36 The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS) warrants brief mention. Although
the Plimmerton Farm site is outside the coastal environment, 33 the ultimate receiving
environment is Te Awarua-o-Porirua Harbour which has significant ecological and cultural
importance. To that extent, Policies 4, 11, 22 and 23 of the NZCPS are relevant in relation to
discharges (especially of sediment). PC18 as we recommend has given effect to them.
2.37 Finally, in response to questions to the experts from Mr Gregory, Messrs Cumming and
Anderson accepted that the NPS-REG is relevant. Their reasoning, proposed new Chapter
11 (renewable electricity generation), and s 32 evaluation is set out at paragraphs [25] to [34]
of their response to questions. 34 We accept and adopt the reasons, changes and the s 32
evaluation.
29
NPS-FM, Part 1.3, Concept.
30
Closing submissions on behalf of PCC at [9]. This is very similar to the comment by counsel for the Director-General of Conservation
(by email dated 21 October 2020) that "the provision for urban development must be made within applicable environmental limits as
provided for in the NPS-FM 2020 (and the NES-F 2020)."
31
We were interested in this due to Objective 1 not referring to environmental matters and Policy 6 (and subpart 3.31) seemly limiting
qualifying matters to building height and density only. However, counsel all took a broader approach which, after consideration, we
have adopted.
32
Closing submissions on behalf of PCC at [11].
33
We accept the position set out at [420] of the s 42A report as to the extent of the coastal environment. This also reflects paragraph
[59] of Ms William's evidence.
34
Dated 9 October 2020.
24
Proposed District Plan
2.38 On 8 August 2020 PCC notified its proposed District Plan which is a review of the whole
ODP excluding PC18. While PC18 is a proposed change to the operative plan, continuing
consistency with the proposed District Plan is relevant and has been considered where
appropriate (for example in alignment of definitions).
NES-FW
2.39 While not directly relevant to PC18, the NES-FW was relevant in terms of wetland functions
(see above) and also in ensuring that PC18 did not conflict with its requirements (noting the
consents are a GWRC matter). Should the Minister accept our recommendation, any
development enabled on the site would need to comply with the NES-FW (or seek consent, if
possible, under it). That is a matter that will require more detailed determination in the future.
For now, we are satisfied that our recommendation sets up a framework that will ensure
natural inland wetlands are properly identified and protected (through Chapter 8 of PC18)
(within the scope of PC18 and the functions of PCC).
Other relevant documents
2.40 While not an iwi management plan, Ngāti Toa has released the Ngāti Toa Rangatira
Statement on the Te Awarua-o-Porirua Whaitua Implementation Programme (2019). While
focused on the regional council whaitua this document emphasises the importance of the
harbour to Ngāti Toa (and the community of Porirua) and the need for it to be nurtured and
protected.
2.41 In addition, other relevant documents include the Porirua Development Framework (2009),
the Porirua Northern Growth Area Structure Plan (2014) and the Porirua Growth Strategy
(2019). There are also a number of relevant growth capacity plans, 35 in particular the
Housing and Business development Capacity assessment – Porirua City Council.
2.42 The evidence of Ms Kearse on behalf of Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency set out a number
of relevant land transport documents. We have considered those documents in relation to
Section 11 on the Transport Chapter and in relation to the strategic objectives for PC18 set
out in the Strategic Objectives and Policies Chapter (Chapter 3).
3. CONTEXT
3.1 Plimmerton Farm (and its surrounds, in particular Te Ara Harakeke (Taupō Swamp) and
Te Awarua-o-Porirua harbour) is of historical and cultural significance to Ngāti Toa. While
the cultural context is provided in more depth in Section 6, the Plimmerton Farm area is part
25
of the Taupō 1 Block Reserve, one of three reserves set aside for Ngāti Toa as a result of the
Porirua Deed of Cession 1847. In the 1840s Taupō (now known as Plimmerton) became the
principal settlement for Ngāti Toa. The area was fertile for garden cultivations and the
wetlands and harbour provided plentiful kai as well as resources such as harakeke.
3.2 By 1844, 36 the forests covering Plimmerton farm were being cleared for agricultural use. The
main trunk railway was constructed on the western side of Taupō Swamp and SH1
constructed on the eastern side commencing in 1936. 37 These works, along with agriculture
and the growth of Plimmerton (as well as the establishment of the Plimmerton Industrial
Estate) resulted in much of the Taupō Swamp complex being lost. Mr FitzGerald provided us
with a series of aerial photos from 1942, 1946, 1961 and 1974 showing the development of
the area, including Plimmerton township, and the loss of wetland areas over that time. We
note also the early photos of the area attached to the s 32 report Ecology Assessment 38 and
Dr van Meeuwen-Dijkgraaf's evidence.
3.3 Features of the 384ha Plimmerton Farm include that it:
(a) varies in elevation by approximately 200m, with its hills forming the existing rural
backdrop to Plimmerton (and to houses along the western hills on the other side of the
valley);
(b) is extensively farmed pasture (less intensively over the last few years) with an area of
pine forestry at the north eastern corner;
(c) contains steep terrain, with 40% of the site steeper than 40 degrees and only 20%
having a gradient gentler than 1:5 (but half the site is on gentle to moderate slopes with
gradients less than 40 degrees);
(d) is deeply incised by waterways (with 4 major gully systems) the headwaters of which,
especially in the main gully (SNA196), are largely covered by regenerating native
vegetation;
(e) has a number of wetland areas, classified generally as broader valley swamps,
narrower valley bottom seepage wetlands and small valley sided seepage wetlands;
(f) contains two arms of the Taupō Swamp mapped by GWRC and identified (along with
the main Taupō Swamp complex) as a wetland with outstanding biodiversity values;
35
See answers to questions by Mr Cumming and Mr Anderson, 9 October 2020, [40]-[45].
36
See Figure 10 of the Archaeological Assessment (Appendix 4 to the s 32 report) and Section 3.1 of the CIA (Appendix 5 of the s 32
report).
37
Mr FitzGerald provided us with an article from the Evening Standard of 13 April 1937 on the construction of SH1 in the area.
38
At page 11.
26
(g) contains part of the proposed Kakaho Special Amenity Landscape area covering the
upper slopes and ridgeline.
3.4 Beyond the Plimmerton Farm site the surrounding areas include:
(a) Taupō Swamp main complex ((an outstanding water body in the PNRP) 39 to which the
northern end and the lower parts of the middle of the site drain);
(b) Taupō Stream (to which the southern and the upper parts of the middle of the site
drains) 40 and for part of Precinct C the Kakaho Stream;
(c) Plimmerton township ((including the railway station) and the new adjacent
developments (such as along Mo Street), older developments through Camborne
North, and an industrial area (proposed to be rezoned mixed use));
(d) Te Awarua-o-Porirua Harbour, which has significant (with parts being outstanding)
ecological and cultural importance. Pauatahanui Inlet (saltmarsh and tidal flats) is
scheduled in the PNRP as having outstanding indigenous biodiversity values. Te
Awarua-o-Porirua Harbour – Pauatahanui Arm and the Onepoto Arm are also
scheduled as having significant habitats for nesting birds. This is important as all the
catchments within Plimmerton Farm drain into Te Awarua-o-Porirua via either the
Taupō Stream (for most of the site) or the Kakaho Stream.
4. OUR APPROACH
Background
4.1 While there are a number of important issues addressed in our report (see below) the key
focus of submissions, questions, evidence and the hearing was on ecological effects and
outcomes. It became apparent to us early in the process that Plimmerton Farm is located
adjacent to some significant (and outstanding) ecological and cultural areas, in particular
Taupō Swamp and Te Awarua-o-Porirua. The tenor of the s 32 report, the Minister's
expectations, and submissions on the need to ensure these areas were protected, and
effects on them avoided, was clear. In addition, the site itself contains not only parts of
Taupō Swamp but also a number of SNAs and wetlands (with other areas still to be
identified).
39
Schedule A3.
40
See the Catchment Plan in Figure 1 to the Appendix 9 of the s32 report – Ecological Assessment.
27
4.2 The approach that we have adopted is explained in many submissions. For example, Ngāti
Toa submitted:
Te Rūnanga understand the need for future housing development within the Porirua
region given its rapidly expanding population. However, it is inevitable that large-scale
greenfield development, and a substantial population increase will impact on our
current environment.
Overall, Te Rūnanga considers that any adverse cultural effects resulting from the
Plimmerton Farm development can be mitigated through the implementation of the
recommendations contained within this report, alongside best practice, high quality
development. Plimmerton Farm provides an opportunity to set the bar, nationwide.
4.3 The themes of 'setting the bar' and of appropriate development while ensuring environmental
protection was also integral to the CIA prepared by Ngāti Toa. In particular, in relation to
sediment, the CIA states: 41
In order to reduce the environmental risk of sediment, it is critical that the most
stringent containment measures are adopted. Best practice soil and erosion control
measures will need to be built into the construction methodology.
4.4 This need for measures (and limits) was advanced by many submitters 42 and was strongly
advanced by QEII and Forest and Bird. For example, counsel for QEII referred to "achieving
the highest possible standards" 43 in order to protect the outstanding values of Taupō Swamp.
Counsel for Forest & Bird commented:
2. Any development of this site must protect these [significant biodiversity values]
characteristics. The Minister's statement of expectations, the Council's responsibilities
under the RMA, and various higher order documents, make this clear. It is a high bar.
4.5 Dr Blaschke (expert ecologist for PCC) stated in his evidence:
86. In my opinion, accelerated sedimentation is the single most significant potential

adverse effect of the development envisaged by PC18. Consequently, proactive,
consistently excellent and very robust erosion and sedimentation measures represent
the most important measures that can be taken to address adverse ecological effects.
I accept that better than current best practice will be needed to achieve this standard.
4.6 We expand on our approach to ensuring such an outcome (at a planning framework level)
below.
41
At section 6.2.
42
Including before us by the Whitby Residents Association.
43
Legal submissions of counsel for QE2 at [36].
28
4.7 Many submitters, such as Ms Crawthorn, insisted that if PC18 is approved then 'best
practice' development with the environment being the priority should be the standard.
Te Awarua-o-Porirua Harbour and Catchment Community Trust adopted a similar, but
slightly different position - to ensure that the downstream effects of the development are
positive and enhance the catchment and harbour ecosystem. We develop that theme of
enhancement below.
4.8 Mr Gillies, on behalf of PDL, accepted in his evidence 44 and in questions during the hearing
that he (and PDL) needed to avoid adverse effects on Taupō Swamp and that PDL was
committed to looking after it. He also accepted that the development of the site had to occur
within environmental limits.
4.9 We acknowledge that many submitters 45 considered that the potential environmental effects
were too great, and the likelihood of compliance with necessary provisions too low, that
PC18 should not be approved.
Context
4.10 We have briefly summarised the context of the site in Section 3. The critical aspects of the
site relevant to the approach that we have adopted include:
(a) The size of the site and therefore:
(i) the ability, in our view, for it as a whole to appropriately accommodate both
development and protection and enhancement of significant indigenous
biodiversity;
(ii) providing space for the measures required to achieve the 'highest possible
standards'.
(iii) enabling important components of the development to relocate if necessary (as

now proposed to respond to potential issues should Precinct D be in part or
totality a wetland); and
(iv) along with location (in particular, its proximity to Plimmerton Station) and
topography enabling greater intensification to be located within Precincts A
and B.
(b) That while the site contains a number of SNAs and wetlands (with more areas to be
identified through future mapping) it is apparent from the evidence, and our site visit,
that most (if not all) of these areas have been heavily modified and would significantly
44
At [13] - [15].
45
Including Friends of Taupō Swamp, Bill McAulay and May Bass.
29
benefit from the protection proposed through PC18. The BORA sites are currently
almost exclusively pasture. In our view there is significant scope for environmental
enhancement and benefit for indigenous biodiversity (both onsite and offsite 46). That is
apparent onsite for the areas proposed to be set aside as terrestrial SNAs (38.5ha) and
BORAs (88.1ha) covering roughly a third of the site. In addition, other areas of SNA
(including wetlands) are likely to be identified through the mapping process on
subdivision, thus enabling their protection.
(c) The same opportunity for environmental benefit exists in relation to sedimentation (and
hence water quality). We heard, and were shown photos of, the existing sediment
loads coming from the site, especially at times of heavy rainfall. That makes sense
given the steep terrain and soil type and we saw small slips, slumping in the valleys
and areas of stock damage during our site visit.
(d) The ability to minimise changes to the hydrological regime through setting aside such
large areas of the site (and providing for their revegetation) as well as providing 20m
setbacks from waterbodies and providing for the extent and type of planting within
riparian margins (through SUB-IR-1). 47 The full identification of wetlands at
subdivision, and their protection as required through the NES-FW, will further reduce
hydrological effects.
(e) The ability for Ngāti Toa to be reconnected with their ancestral lands and taonga,
including the exercise of kaitiakitanga, involvement in monitoring and ability to utilise
natural resources for cultural purposes which contributes to inter-generational
knowledge transfer and the enhancement of mātauranga Māori.
(f) The ability, through the above factors, to provide for Te Mana o te Wai in relation to
receiving waters.
Our approach
4.11 This section is a high-level discussion of our approach - our detailed consideration and
reasoning is set out in the sections of our report below.
4.12 Our approach is to require enhancement and protection of SNAs, receiving waters and
indigenous biodiversity across the site. We recognise, and provide the framework for, the
highest possible standards to address matters, especially in relation to stormwater
management and sedimentation. While some of these measures (such as water sensitive
design) will be new to the region (hence some submitters cautioned us against them) we
46
Recognising that onsite protection provides buffer (such as reducing sediment) benefits for offsite areas as well as connections and
pathways for biodiversity.
47
As well as through water sensitive design.
30
consider that they can be appropriately implemented through a consenting process. Our
approach is that protection of what presently exists is not the most appropriate long-term
sustainable management outcome for the site and its surrounds – rather, it is to improve
environmental outcomes. We consider that an enhancement outcome is eminently feasible
at this site.
4.13 Within those core parameters we consider that development of the site should be enabled
and will provide significant housing benefits for the district, and a well-functioning urban
environment. That enablement is, in our view, required in order for us to give effect to the
NPS-UD, the RPS and to promote the purpose of the RMA.
4.14 Throughout the submissions and hearing the most common concern raised to us was that of
uncertainty. Wetlands had been identified but not definitively. There were questions
surrounding how much, if any, of Precinct D (as notified) would be available for development,
and on that basis whether a suitable within-zone commercial centre to meet the needs of the
new neighbourhood would be achievable. There were questions regarding how and when a
pedestrian connection to the Plimmerton Train Station might be available. The issue of
monitoring and enforcement was of broad interest to submitters concerned that down-stream
damage to sensitive receiving environments including the Taupō Swamp might occur.
4.15 As mentioned, some submitters were adamant that there was no scenario whereby
development could occur in a satisfactory manner. 48 Most took the more measured
approach of focusing on the risks presented by the uncertainties and emphasising that
without being addressed properly the risks were simply too great to look beyond.
4.16 PCC's experts expressed optimism that with proactive management and a better-than-best
practice approach, such concerns and uncertainties could be managed through the resource
consent process.
4.17 Through Messrs Cumming and Anderson's right of reply, refinements to the zone provisions
were proposed. New provisions in the proposed Subdivision Chapter would require, for the
first subdivision consent application within the zone, a number of zone-wide clarifications and
conformations. Messrs Cumming and Anderson described this as follows 49:
"The rewritten provisions now require that the first subdivision within the PFZ would be
required to map all SNAs, BORAs, natural wetlands (with GWRC input), areas of
significant terrestrial indigenous biodiversity outside of SNAs and BORAs, areas within
SNAs and BORAs of non-indigenous vegetation that provide significant indigenous
biodiversity habitat, and catchment and sub-catchment boundaries. This first
48
Including Friends of Taupō Swamp, Bill McAulay and May Bass.
49
Right of Reply statement of Mr. Andrew Cumming and Mr. Thomas Anderson, 23 October 2020, paragraph 114.
31
subdivision would then prepare an EIBMP that details pest management, fencing, any
offsetting or restoration in BORAs, provision for cultural harvesting, management
measures for areas of significant terrestrial indigenous biodiversity outside of SNAs and
BORAs and the legal mechanism (which is likely a Consent Notice) to specify the
landowner's responsibility for the ongoing management and funding of any SNAs,
BORAs and areas of significant terrestrial, indigenous biodiversity outside of SNAs and
BORAs on a site."
4.18 We understood that the purpose of the proposed provisions was to enable subsequent
development within the zone to proceed on the basis of firmer footing. We find that this is an
appropriate and desirable general approach to address the 'information gap' emphasised by
submitters.
4.19 We find that without such a PFZ-wide 'first step', it would be difficult to agree with PCC's
experts, and PDL's evidence and submissions, that PC18's framework adequately addresses
the potential adverse effects associated with the development of the land. That is because,
as explained above, the PFZ contains and adjoins a number of very sensitive areas. While
we accept the evidence that, if done very well, a successful mixed-density neighbourhood
can establish within the PFZ we are also persuaded that only a better-than-best-practice
framework will suffice.
4.20 We do not consider that additional certainty can or should be sought at the initial plan-making
stage. The PFZ includes a Precinct Plan with numerous specific items identified (albeit often
on an indicative basis as was noted by counsel for QEII). The provisions of PC18 provide for
wide-ranging resource consent requirements and frequent opportunities for PCC (noting too
that consents will also need to be acquired from GWRC) to refuse resource consents where
an acceptable environmental quality has not been achieved. In these respects, we see
PC18 as sitting towards the more-detailed end of the spectrum of plan provisions we have
seen.
4.21 Rather, we see the uncertainties that exist as sitting somewhere between the high-level of a
regulatory framework and the detail of individual site-based developments. We consider that
PC18 needs to have clear strategic zone outcomes which are addressed through a robust
resource consent process. The term 'strategic' refers to framework that relates to the whole
of the PFZ, and potentially beyond, and the term 'resource consent' refers to a detailed and
quantified 'on the ground' proposal and associated activities.
32
4.22 The proposed zone-wide subdivision consent proposed by Messrs Cumming and Anderson
in their right of reply goes a long way to provide such a strategic approach. In our draft
report we did not support the approach proposed in the right of reply for two reasons:
(a) First, we disagreed that placing the framework for this consent deep within the body of
PC18 (in the Subdivision Chapter) adequately reflected the strategic importance of this
method.
(b) Secondly, we disagreed that the scope of the method proposed by Messrs Cumming
and Anderson, being limited to environmental sensitivities, accounts for the wider range
of key uncertainties we have been persuaded exists and which needs to be addressed
in more detail before general subdivision and development of the PFZ should proceed.
4.23 As a result, in our draft report we recommend removing the zone-wide subdivision consent
requirement from the (reply-version) Subdivision Chapter and replacing it with strategic zone
outcomes and a specific Strategic Framework Resource Consent (SFRC) within Chapter 3:
Strategic Objectives which we recommended be changed to 'Strategic Outcomes'. In doing
so we considered a half-way house option retaining the method within the Subdivision
Chapter and the policies within the Strategic Outcomes Chapter which while might work did
not have the strategic matters together so that the intent and focus was clear, and upfront, to
all plan users and readers.
4.24 In our draft report we considered the relevant case law of Queenstown Airport Corporation
Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council 50 and Re Auckland Council. 51
4.25 In summary the Queenstown decision ruled against using consent 'planning' frameworks to
determine activity statuses in the future (and have activities prohibited in the interim), with the
Court being clear that activity status must derive from the RMA and planning documents (in
this case PC18). A consent must be for an activity (in this case a land use and/or subdivision
consent). Put simply a resource consent cannot be used for plan making purposes. 52
4.26 In our draft report we then structured our approach in light of the case law. The comments
received from Ms Smith, Welhom Developments Ltd, PDL and PCC set out in detail why the
approach we had adopted did not, in their opinion, correctly respond to the case law (as cited
above). Helpfully PDL and PCC both provided us with redrafted provisions to address the
concerns raised. We have carefully considered them.
40. Accepting these comments, we have removed the SFRC approach and adapted the
provisions of PC18 to retain our desired outcome that it establishes a robust planning and
50
[2014] NZEnvC 93.
51
[2016] NZEnvC 56.
52
Ibid at [80].
33
consenting framework that reflects the significant attributes of the site (and its surrounding
environments), addresses key uncertainties and enabling development within the required
environmental limits) while addressing the legal concerns raised. We have amended the
Strategic Objectives and Policies Chapter with retention of policies focused on
Comprehensive land and Water Management and Spatial Integration. These two policies
are critical to provide strategic oversight throughout PC18 and across the PFZ. We accept
the helpful suggestion by PDL (supported by PCC) to move the Subdivision Chapter forward
and have amended the Strategic Objectives and Policies Chapter, removing the rule
requirement and providing for the outcomes through the other PC18 Chapters, in particular
the Subdivision Chapter.
41. The provisions as we recommend them:
(a) Establish strategic and zone-wide objectives and policies;
(b) Establish policies applying to Comprehensive Land and Water Management across the
PFZ as a whole to avoid piecemeal, ad hoc or incrementally inappropriate outcomes
over time and in relation to Spatial Integration for subdivision consents addressing
ecological and locational matters for key zone elements;
(a) Require that all subdivision gives effect to the Strategic Objectives and Policies, in
particular to address ecological matters we consider necessary given the site (and its
surrounding) values (and the current state of knowledge) and that subdivision consents
consider the appropriateness of any proposed interim, staged or temporary
infrastructure to ensure it is provided in an integrated manner;
(b) Require appropriately detailed information on ecological matters to be included with

subdivision consent applications (detail on transport and commercial precinct design
matters, and connections are provided through the other relevant chapters);
(c) Utilise the Strategic Policies as matters of discretion throughout the plan to ensure that
they are considered when relevant; and
(d) Require appropriate provision of monitoring and land management provisions given the
scale and sensitivity of the site (and its receiving environments).
4.27 The strategic zone objectives and policies act as an appropriate transition between the
provisions of PC18 as a broad regulatory framework and individual subdivision and
development consents. We find it to be an effective and efficient means of addressing
environmental uncertainties though a clear policy and consenting process.
34
4.28 In its comments on the draft report PDL raised a number of other matters of concern in
respect of the level of detail required through the SFRC process. While we have removed
the SFRC process, we still consider that there are fundamental information requirements that
need to be appropriately addressed through the PC18 framework. We have however
retained a number of information and policy/rule provisions, albeit now in what we consider a
more efficient manner. They require a high degree of detail to be provided through future
resource consents.
4.29 By way of example we have retained (but amended to respond to redrafting to address vires
issues) the following key matters:
(a) Confirmation, through subdivision consents of SNAs, Areas of Significant Terrestrial

Indigenous Biodiversity, BORAs and natural wetlands. This will require subdivision,
irrespective of its scale, to provide this information.
It is anticipated that this will be provided through the first subdivision (and when
sufficient information has been provided through an earlier subdivision it can be
reused). PDL has sought this be done on a staged (per precinct) basis. 53 As
mentioned above, many submitters sought that level of information be provided now
but we consider that sufficient detail has been provided for PC18. However, what we
consider critical given the PFZ and its potential values (for example in relation to lizards
which are yet to be surveyed) is that PC18 ensures robust, up front, identification of the
important ecological areas. From an ecological perspective (see Section 8) the PFZ as
a whole (and its surrounding environment) is inextricably linked and, as mentioned in
relation to the Strategic Objectives and Policies, carefully planned and managed spatial
integration across the PFZ is critical.
Further, it is likely that development in one area will need to mitigate or offset (and
potentially translocate species such as lizards) into another area. To identify suitable
‘donor’ areas to receive animals from impacted areas will require an understanding of
the values of potential donor areas, including the animals already inhabiting these
areas, to ensure they are suitable for receiving translocations. This will not be
satisfactorily addressed if ecological and biodiversity values are assessed in a gradual
manner. In order to deliver the necessary environmental outcomes assessment must
be integrated at a zone scale. As set out above we were told, and accept, that better
than best practice is required to ensure development of the PFZ occurs within the
appropriate environmental limits. PDL accepted an outcome of development within
limits. We also understand that that at least parts of this work has already been
discussed – Dr Blaschke mentioned he has spoken with PDL about further work.
53
PDL's comments on the draft report at [54]. Note we consider that this comment is beyond a minor or technical (legal) matter.
35
(b) Confirmation of the location of the pedestrian and cycle across St Andrews Road to
enable connection to the Plimmerton station and Plimmerton School and the timing of
that connection to ensure safety and connectivity of zone residents. In their comments
on our draft report PDL challenge this on the basis that it requires third party approval.
That is correct but is common place in relation to road controlling authorities for roading
connections and subdivisions around New Zealand and has been applied many times 54
(so long as they relate to effects associated with the plan change). In this case they
clearly do. A safe connection across St Andrews Road is necessary to both mitigate
effects of PC18 (safety of its residents and their connectivity to Plimmerton) and to
provide for the benefits on which PDL relies in supporting PC18 and its development
(in particular connectivity with the train station). That discussion must occur from the
start of subdivision and development to ensure it is planned (and timed) and then PFZ
development integrated. In order to ensure it is efficiently delivered we have linked this
to the subdivision and transport chapters. PDL also states that there is current
uncertainty over the road controlling authority (issues of revocation, or not, following
the opening of Transmission Gully are being resolved). Given its relationship with both
PCC and Waka Kotahi we do not see this as adding any major issue and as both are
highly used to such discussions with developers do not see this as an impediment.
(c) Identification of the commercial centre.
(d) Requirements to:
(i) Protect and enhance significant indigenous biodiversity;
(ii) Recognise Te Mana o te Wai for receiving waters and minimise hydrological
changes to key environments;
(iii) Achieve high quality and well-connected built forms; and
(iv) Provide effective ongoing management, monitoring and

compliance/enforcement.
4.30 The last matter, monitoring and management requires an additional brief mention. PDL in
relation to the SFRC approach considered it "illogical - if not unreasonable". 55 We are not
now recommending the SFRC approach and avoiding the issue of requiring a plan without
the consents for the activities, but we have retained similar provisions through the
Subdivision Chapter (supported by the strategic policies). We have kept these provisions
because, as explained throughout our report, monitoring is critical in ensuring that 'better
54
See for example: Transit New Zealand v Papakura District Council A61/2006; Thompson and Others v Western Bay of Plenty District
Council A91/2005 (interim decision A16/2005); Cornerstone Group Limited v North Shore District Council A 42/07; and NZRPG
Management Limited v Western Bay of Plenty District Council A61/2008.
55
PDL's comments on the draft report at [50].
36
than best practice' standards and outcomes are achieved, that the environmental
enhancement is delivered and also in addressing many concerns raised by submitters. We
also recognise that over time consents will become more 'honed' as the development
progresses and changes to the Ecosystems and Indigenous Biodiversity Management Plan
(EIBMP) may be required. But we consider, for the reasons above, that the EIBMP must be
developed early on to ensure integrated management and acceptable environmental
outcomes.
4.31 We also recognise that PDL may consider the information requirements within our final report
remain "so immense and disproportionate to the effects that might arise at first subdivision"
which could be minor or geographically isolated. 56 In its comments on the provisions PDL
commented that "this level of information cannot be reasonably (or sensibly) provided upfront
at the first subdivision." Rather PDL sought a broad set of ecological principles. We accept
that a Mo Street extension may be the first subdivision. 57 While this subdivision could be
serviced via existing networks presently it is unknown where within the 'new' precinct A the
commercial centre will be, the links that subdivision will have to the rest of precinct A, the
commercial centre and down to across St Andrew's road as well as the environmental effects
its development may have on neighbouring and downstream ecologically significant areas
(including SNAs). We also do not know, and need to ensure it is integrated, what mitigation
and offsetting may be required.
4.32 As already mentioned while we recognise the upfront cost of these investigations we
consider for the Plimmerton Farm site it is essential that these key matters are addressed in
an integrated manner across the zone. That will help achieve sustainable management and
also 'better than best practice' outcomes that we were told by the experts and submitters are
required (and which we accept). We do not consider that providing a broad set of ecological
principles as proposed by PDL would provide the necessary, detailed, information. In our
view understanding the full range of ecology and biodiversity across the PFZ at the start is
critical to delivering a 'better than best practice' approach.
4.33 In addition to the matters already canvassed, it is highly unlikely that environmental values of
the PFZ can be managed effectively if we do not know what the values are, or where those
values exist.
4.34 Further, impacts on natural environments or indigenous species typically result from gradual
changes, otherwise known as ‘death by a thousand cuts’. A gradual decline in the reduction
of habitat and/or its quality often occurs as small, apparently insignificant, changes over time.
Urban development is a classic contributor to such change. If PC18 were to allow piecemeal
56
PDL's comments on the draft report at [14b] and [23].
57
Ibid at [53].
37
assessment of ecological values as small subdivisions occur, it is likely to result in a

continuation of this gradual decline rather than the improvement sought by many submitters
with which we agree.
4.35 In terms of s 32AA of the RMA, we adopt the analysis presented by Messrs Cumming and
Anderson in support of their reply-version of the PC18 provisions. We also rely on our
discussion above as to matters raised by PDL in particular as to the costs and
proportionality. Having undertaken the consideration that has been summarised above, we
are satisfied that the approach we have adopted in relation to the Strategic Objectives and
Policies, and its integration across PC18 described above will:
(a) Be efficient by way of enabling a clear policy and consenting framework by setting clear
strategic objectives and policies efficiently linked to consenting process across PC18.
This will reduce and otherwise manage development uncertainties and environmental
risks (as explained above);
(b) By effective by way of ensuring a sufficient level of detailed PFZ-wide resource and
development related information is provided during future consenting processes,
commencing at the outset of zone subdivision and development to deliver
Comprehensive Land and Water Management and Spatial Integration necessary
across the PFZ;
(c) Not impose materially more costs on an applicant (over time) or the community, while
providing greater certainty on key environmental and development matters necessary
to achieve the strategic objectives for PC18 and the purpose of the RMA;
(d) While, depending on the approach PDL adopts, there may greater 'up-front' costs to
the developer that is the most appropriate way for the objectives to achieve the
purpose of the RMA and for the provisions to achieve the objectives and is both
efficient and effective at ensuring the objectives are met for the reasons explained
above;
(e) Otherwise present resource management benefits that substantially outweigh potential
costs;
(f) Address the risks presented by uncertainties, particularly in relation to other areas of
significant terrestrial indigenous biodiversity, natural wetlands, the primary collector
road and connectivity across St Andrews Road; and
(g) Overall presents the most appropriate means of implementing the zone's strategic
objectives and otherwise recognising the concerns expressed by many submitters to
PC18.
38
5. KEY ISSUES
5.1 Sections 6 to 17 below set out the key issues before us.
5.2 Other issues raised during the hearing, to which we consider an additional response beyond
that set out by Mr Cumming and Anderson in their s 42A report, 58 and their rebuttal, hearing
version and reply version evidence are addressed in Section 18. For those matters not
otherwise listed, we agree with, and adopt the reasoning of Messrs Cumming and Anderson.
To avoid doubt, on a general basis given the significant number of submission points:
(a) those submissions that sought changes aligned with our recommended version of
PC18 in Appendix 1 are accepted;
(b) those submissions aligned in part with our recommended version of PC18 in Appendix
1 are accepted in part; and
(c) those submissions not aligned with our recommended version of PC18 in Appendix 1
are rejected.
5.3 In relation to s 32 and s 32AA, to which we have had particular regard in relation to the
notified version and all changes to the notified version of PC18:
(a) To a large degree, as we largely agree with their recommendations and evaluations,
we rely on and have adopted the original s 32 report and the s 32AA assessments
undertaken by Messrs Cumming and Anderson in their s 42A report, rebuttal evidence,
hearing presentation summary and reply.
(b) In numerous cases we have made only minor changes to the provisions as proposed
by (and supported by s 32AA evaluation by) Messrs Cumming and Anderson in their s
42A report, rebuttal evidence, hearing presentation summary and reply (as above). We
do not therefore provide additional s 32AA analysis as the changes do not warrant any
additional evaluation beyond that we have adopted above.
(c) We have provided our own s 32AA evaluation as required where we have
recommended substantive changes to PC18.
6. CULTURAL EFFECTS
Cultural context
6.1 The PFZ is located within the 'rohe' or tribal domain of Ngāti Toa Rangatira (Ngāti Toa).
Ngāti Toa migrated to the Raukawa Moana (Cook Strait) area from Kawhia in the early
58
Including their summary of decisions requested with officer recommendations.
39
1820s and have held exclusive mana whenua / tangata whenua status in the Porirua area
since that time. 59 In the 1840s, Taupō (now known as Plimmerton) became the principal
settlement of Ngāti Toa and commercial hub for the lucrative whaling and flax industries.
However, in 1846 Governor Grey instigated a military campaign against Ngāti Toa with a
view to acquiring all the prime lands in Porirua and undermining Ngāti Toa's ‘rangatiratanga'
(chiefly authority and influence). Te Rauparaha was seized and taken prisoner from Taupō
Pā and Te Rangihaeata was forced into exile following his ‘last stand' and subsequent retreat
from Battle Hill (at Pauatahanui). Grey was then able to coerce Ngāti Toa into selling Porirua
on the promise of Te Rauparaha's release. Three reserves (totalling around 10,000 acres)
were set aside in perpetuity for the benefit of Ngāti Toa as part of the Porirua Deed of
Cession in 1847. The PFZ is located within one of the three reserves, known as the Taupō 1
reserve block. 60 Although these reserves were intended to be held in perpetuity for Ngāti
Toa, alienation restrictions were removed by the Native Land Court, enabling the land to be
sold on the open market. By 1882 the Taupō 1 reserve block had been alienated from the
Iwi, along with the majority of the reserve lands set aside in 1847. Ngāti Toa was left virtually
landless and in a state of extreme socio-economic deprivation. 61
6.2 Today, Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangatira (the Rūnanga) is the mandated iwi authority for all
Ngāti Toa descendants. It was established over thirty years ago to protect and enhance the
mana of Ngāti Toa across all aspects of the political, economic, social and environmental
landscape. In relation to the natural environment, Te Ao Tūroa, the Rūnanga's objective:
"… is to nurture a resilient environment to sustain future generations through reclaimed

connection and mātauranga to natural resources , empowering kaitiaki who are leaders
and co-managers of our natural environment, our commitment to environmental
sustainability and our ability to adapt to the impacts of climate change."
6.3 In alignment with this objective, Ngāti Toa has engaged closely with the Council over the
preparation of PC18, and through subsequent consultation on the pre-notification draft of
PC18. The Rūnanga was also commissioned by PCC to undertake a Cultural Impact
Assessment to identify any potential adverse cultural effects arising from PC18.
Key Issues
6.4 There were a number of issues identified by Ngāti Toa during the consultation process over
PC18, and through the development of the CIA, that were considered to have potential
detrimental effects on identified cultural values. These issues are summarised as follows:
(a) Water quality, including flooding and stormwater issues;
59
Cultural Impact Assessment: Plimmertoan Farm Development (December 2019), page 7.
60
Ibid, page 10.
61
Ibid, page 11.
40
(b) Managing the effects of earthworks, particularly sedimentation;
(c) Protection of Taupō Swamp and other wetland areas within the development site;
(d) Recognition of the importance of Ngati Toa's relationship with Te Awarua-o-Porirua;

and
(e) Effects on infrastructure, particularly wastewater given the current state of the network
and capacity of the Porirua Wastewater Treatment Plant.
6.5 Stormwater management was highlighted as a particular concern of Ngāti Toa given that the
ultimate receiving environment for the Plimmerton Farm development is Te Awarua-o-Porirua
(Porirua Harbour). Te Awarua-o-Porirua has played a vital role over the generations in
sustaining the physical and cultural needs of Ngāti Toa, both in terms of providing an ideal
coastal location for settlement and also as a plentiful source of kaimoana and other
resources. 62 The CIA and submission from the Rūnanga both emphasised Ngāti Toa's
support for the incorporation of Whaitua Implementation Programme recommendations into
PC18 and the development of freshwater principles that take account of mana whenua
values in relation to freshwater management.
6.6 In relation to earthworks, Ngāti Toa's primary concerns related, firstly, to the need for
protection of sites of cultural and / or archaeological significance; and secondly, to the
negative impacts of increased sedimentation. The s 32 report Archaeological Assessment
does not identify any archaeological sites within the PFZ, but it does highlight the possibility
of unearthing unrecorded archaeological remains and / or cultural material, given the
historical and cultural importance of Taupō Pā complex (including the swamp and
surrounding environs). At the hearing, Ngāti Toa expressed support for the report's
recommendations which include a requirement within PC18 that all subsequent resource
consents must include an accidental discovery protocol. 63 In terms of sedimentation, the CIA
emphasises the critical need for the most stringent containment measures to be adopted and
better-than-best practice soil and erosion control measures to be built into the construction
methodology. 64
6.7 Te Ara Harakeke (Taupō Swamp) is a taonga of significance to Ngāti Toa. Traditionally, it
provided a rich and plentiful supply of food for the iwi and an abundant source of harakeke
that was harvested both for cultural purposes (such as weaving), 65 as well as for the lucrative
flax trade in the 1830s. 66 Despite the environmental degradation of Taupō Swamp over the
62
Cultural Impact Assessment, page 12.
63
Ibid, page13.
64
Ibid, page 13.
65
Ibid, page 10.
66
Ibid, section 3.2.
41
decades, it continues to have cultural significance to Ngāti Toa, whose aspirations include
the restoration and enhancement of the swamp and its associated wetlands.
6.8 At the hearing, Ngāti Toa indicated a strong desire to be involved with the identification and
management of the wetlands within the Plimmerton Farm Zone. Ms Solomon also proposed
that the management of the wetlands should be undertaken in accordance with a Kaupapa
Māori model of practice to ensure the health of wetland habitats can be protected and
disturbances of mauri (spiritual life force) in relation to waterways is kept to an absolute
minimum. 67 She suggested that an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) should be
developed for the management of the wetlands and that cultural health indicators should be
considered in response to the loss of mauri (and other cultural impacts) to ensure that any
adverse cultural effects are able to be properly measured and assessed.
6.9 Ngāti Toa's concerns in relation to the effects of PC18 on infrastructure relate primarily to the
impacts of future growth on the Porirua Wastewater Treatment Plant (addressed in Section
16). Ngāti Toa's view is that the cumulative effect of all current and impending developments
should be considered in the broader context of infrastructure planning, and that this is
particularly important at this point in time given the extensive development currently in the
planning or early construction phase in the district. 68
Discussion
6.10 Although the CIA identified a number of significant issues associated with PC18, it became
apparent during the course of the hearing that Ngāti Toa had been working closely with PCC
and PDL to resolve cultural concerns. As a result, the Rūnanga was comfortable that the
framework and provisions as proposed through PC18 would appropriately mitigate any
adverse effects on cultural values. 69
6.11 Ms Solomon reinforced the importance of engaging with PCC and PDL in developing
culturally-appropriate freshwater principles to be adopted into the plan change. 70 The
Freshwater Principles within PC18 have also been developed to ensure the Whaitua
Implementation Plan (WIP) recommendations, where they fall within the jurisdiction of PCC,
are appropriately considered at the time of subdivision, use and / or development. These
principles are given effect to in various objectives, policies and rules of the PFZ and will
ensure that cultural values are recognised and provided for through the future development
of the site. An important component of ensuring cultural values are addressed is providing
for Te Mana o te Wai for receiving waters. Our detailed discussion on the Stormwater
Chapter is in Section 9.
67
Ibid, page 15.
68
Ibid, page 16.
69
Ibid, page 1.
70
Ibid, page 1.
42
6.12 Similarly, the Erosion and Sediment Control Principles have been developed within PC18 to
ensure the WIP recommendations are appropriately considered at the time of development.
This will provide a more robust solution than what is currently required in the GWRC's ESC
guidelines. The adoption of these principles within PC18, along with the Freshwater
Principles (above), was considered critical from Ngati Toa's perspective in protecting the
sensitive and important nature of the downstream receiving environment. Again, an
important component of ensuring cultural values are addressed is providing for Te Mana o
te Wai for receiving waters. Our detailed discussion on the earthworks chapter is in
Section 10.
6.13 The importance of robust monitoring (and enforcement) of waterways, wetlands and
earthworks was identified as an issue of fundamental concern to Ngāti Toa (and many other
submitters). In order to address potential cultural effects in relation to water quality, such as
impacts on mauri and cultural harvest, the Rūnanga suggested the inclusion of cultural
health indicators in the monitoring programme and Ngāti Toa's involvement with the
implementation of the monitoring. 71 While it was acknowledged at the hearing that the detail
of the monitoring programme would not be fully considered until future development
consents, Ngāti Toa sought direction through PC18 to ensure that discussions with the
Council and PDL will actually occur in respect of cultural monitoring. We agree and have
amended the EIBMP in SUBPFZ-IR-1 (and SUBPFZ-P5) accordingly. In addition, we now
understand that PCC will be developing a monitoring strategy for the entire City and that this
will provide the appropriate opportunity to detail the involvement of Ngāti Toa at plan-
monitoring level. 72 Further, as already mentioned, we have provided a strong policy focus for
Te Mana o te Wai for receiving waters.
6.14 In terms of customary harvest, Ngāti Toa regard this activity as important to maintaining and
enhancing the exercise of kaitiakitanga and transmission of traditional knowledge associated
with the use of natural resources for cultural purposes. 73 Ngāti Toa consider that PC18
offers important opportunities for the enhancement of access to natural resources, such as
the wetlands in Plimmerton Farm, which have not been accessible to Iwi members for over
130 years. PDL have agreed to a protocol which provides Ngāti Toa with access to wetlands
and important harakeke sites for the purpose of cultural harvest and we commend such an
approach. We have retained the proposed requirement that the EIBMP (SUBPFZ-IR-1
supported by SUBPFZ-P5) include provision for cultural harvesting.
6.15 The Rūnanga understands and supports the need for future housing development within the
Porirua district given its rapidly expanding population. 74 At the hearing, Ms Solomon clarified
71
Ibid, page 18.
72
Right of Reply, page 47.
73
Ibid, page 19.
74
Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangatira: Plimmerton Farm Submission; page 1.
43
that PC18 would make a positive contribution towards addressing Ngāti Toa's own needs
and aspirations for Iwi housing, especially by enabling Ngāti Toa whānau to return to live on
their 'tūrangawaewae' (ancestral land). Ms Solomon further noted that PC18, in combination
with other housing initiatives throughout the district, would help to improve the availability and
affordability of housing in Porirua which would also benefit Ngāti Toa by leading to improved
social, cultural and economic wellbeing.
6.16 General discussion on the provision of housing is set out in Section 15, but in this context
Ngāti Toa sought, in their submission, to broaden out the definition of 'papakainga' to allow
for Māori communal housing on general land (including within the PFZ), not just on Māori
freehold land. This amendment was accepted by Messrs Cumming and Anderson and
incorporated into PC18 (through the s 42A report recommendations). We agree with that
change and adopt the s 42A report s 32AA assessment. Ms Solomon also highlighted
opportunities for Ngāti Toa's involvement in future aspects of the development and referred
to a letter from PDL attached to the CIA which outlines the company's long-term commitment
(over the 15 - 20 year life of the project) to working with Ngāti Toa and continuing a positive
relationship over the course of the project. 75
6.17 Finally, there were a number of issues raised by the Panel during the course of the hearing
that required a considered response from Messrs Cumming and Anderson. This was
provided in their right of reply and we accept and adopt their changes, including their s 32AA
evaluation. One issue was whether terms such as 'mauri' and 'mātauranga māori' should be
formally defined. However, the Rūnanga did not consider this to be necessary, noting that
PC18 contains strong direction for resource consent applicants to consult with Ngāti Toa. 76
The content of several other definitions was also clarified by the Rūnanga and no further
changes were sought to PC18.
6.18 In relation to the lone tī kouka identified in the Archaeological Assessment Report as
potentially having cultural significance, the Panel sought clarification from Ms Solomon at the
hearing. She subsequently advised that the tī kouka should be provided with some level of
protection as it is a taonga species and is representative of the indigenous vegetation that
would once have existed on the site. 77 In their right of reply Messrs Cumming and Anderson
accepted Ms Solomon's advice and proposed a change to PC18 to enable consideration of
the effects of activities on the tree. 78 We accept that change and adopt their s 32AA
evaluation.
6.19 The Rūnanga also expressed a desire to be involved in the naming of streets to ensure the
historical connection of Ngāti Toa as mana whenua is appropriately reflected throughout the
75
Cultural Impact Assessment, Appendix 3.
76
Right of Reply of PCC Planners, page 1.
77
Ibid, page 14.
44
Plimmerton Farm development. While it was recognised that street names involve a level of
detail beyond the scope of PC18, it was noted that such matters are relevant to the ongoing
discussions with PDL and the Council. In addition, it was confirmed in the right of reply that
the PCC street naming policy does require consultation with Ngāti Toa over all new street
names. 79
Assessment
6.20 Therefore, in terms of our assessment of cultural effects, and noting there are no cultural
issues in contention, we accept all relevant changes to PC18 as proposed by Messrs
Cumming and Anderson in the reply version of PC18, and we adopt the relevant s 32 and
s 32AA evaluation reports accordingly (as set out above). In relation to our sole 'substantive'
addition, explicitly requiring inclusion of cultural monitoring and Ngāti Toa representatives in
the monitoring and reporting framework, we consider that this change provides improved
cultural outcomes for Ngāti Toa. There may be some improved employment and economic
benefit derived and the costs of their inclusion are low – both as their inclusion is anticipated
even without express recognition. In our view, for the reasons set out above, the inclusion of
a specific reference provides greater clarity and overall efficiency and effectiveness of the
provisions.
6.21 Overall, we consider that any potential adverse cultural effects resulting from the Plimmerton
Farm development will be appropriately mitigated through PC18, given the recognition of
Te Mana o te Wai for receiving waters, adoption of Freshwater Principles and Erosion and
Sediment Control Principles, to ensure the implementation of better-than-best practice
stormwater and sediment control measures, and ongoing engagement with Ngāti Toa as
mana whenua during the life of the project. PC18 provides a significant opportunity for Ngāti
Toa in their aspirations to provide suitable housing for their whanau and the clear submission
that additional housing is desperately needed in Porirua.
7. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
7.1 Our approach to the management of the natural environment is based on our view that the
protection of what presently exists is not a long-term sustainable management outcome for
PC18 and the Plimmerton Farm site. Rather, the sustainable management of the indigenous
biodiversity values of Plimmerton Farm and its downstream environments will require a
management approach that ensures enhanced environmental outcomes.
7.2 Therefore, we consider that to accommodate the level of development anticipated by PC18
will require a significant management effort to protect and restore significant and outstanding
78
Ibid, page 14.
79
Ibid, page 47.
45
natural areas consistent with the relief sought by many of the submitters. For example,
Te Awarua-o-Porirua Harbour and Catchment Community Trust sought to ensure that the
downstream effects of the development are positive and contribute to enhancing the
catchment and harbour ecosystem. We agree.
7.3 Given the scale of the Plimmerton Farm site and the current pastoral farming land use, we
consider that environmental enhancement as an outcome is eminently feasible at this site
and would be achieved by PC18 as we recommend.
7.4 There are three interrelated key issues in relation to the natural environment:
(a) Ecosystems and Indigenous Biodiversity;
(b) Stormwater Management; and
(c) Earthworks.
7.5 We have considered these issues in relation to the current values of Plimmerton Farm and its
receiving waters, and the potential effects on the current values, arising from the proposed
development to a level commensurate with the importance and status of the current
Ecosystem and Indigenous Biodiversity values.
7.6 Two of the three Strategic Outcome Chapter objectives for PC18 relate to the natural
environment:
(a) PFZ-O2 Landscapes and indigenous biodiversity values within the site are recognised
and protected.
(b) PFZ-O3 Subdivision, use and development in Plimmerton Farm is undertaken in an

integrated manner that recognises Te Mano o te Wai for receiving waters including
Taupō Swamp, Taupō Stream, Kakaho Stream and Te Awarua-o-Porirua, and
minimises changes to the hydrological regime.
7.7 These objectives are primarily implemented through three chapters in PC18:
(a) Chapter 5: Stormwater Management;
(b) Chapter 8: Ecosystems and Indigenous Biodiversity; and
(c) Chapter 9: Earthworks.
7.8 We address these chapters in turn below, each under a separate main heading given their
significance. However, at a general level across all three chapters where we do not raise an
issue, we accept, and adopt the s 32A report and the approach taken (including any relevant
46
s 32AA assessment) by Messrs Cumming and Anderson in their s 42A report, rebuttal
evidence, hearing presentation summary and reply.
7.9 In relation to the submission points on Chapters 5, 8 and 9:
are rejected,
for the reasons either set out in the s 42A report, rebuttal evidence, hearing presentation
summary and reply of Messrs Cumming and Anderson, or for the reasons we explain
below. We do note that there were a significant number of submission points so we have
not responded individually to each.
8. ECOSYSTEMS AND INDIGENOUS BIODIVERSITY (CHAPTER 8)
Scope of chapter
8.1 The Ecosystems and Indigenous Biodiversity chapter provides a framework for managing the
effects of development on the biodiversity values of the PFZ in accordance with PFZ-O2 (and
to a limited extent for the 'arms' of Taupō Swamp within the PFZ). In-depth discussion of
ecosystem and biodiversity issues is set out in the s 42A report. 80 The site does include the
tributaries to Taupō Stream and the Kākaho Stream both of which are listed as significant
waterways in the PNRP. 81
8.2 It should be noted that this chapter does not consider the effects on downstream receiving
waters, including the majority of the Taupō Swamp and all of Pauatahanui Inlet (saltmarsh
and tidal flats), which are scheduled as having outstanding indigenous biodiversity values. 82
Te Awarua-o-Porirua Harbour – Pauatahanui Arm and the Onepoto Arm are also identified in
the PNRP as significant habitats for nesting birds. 83 The effects on downstream
environments are considered in Chapters 4 and 8 of PC18.
80
At [76]-[174].
81
Schedule F1.
82
PNRP, Schedule A3.
83
PNRP, Schedule F2c.
47
8.3 Within the scope of this chapter, we received submissions and evidence on the following key
issues:
(a) Identification of terrestrial SNAs;
(b) Management of terrestrial SNAs;
(c) Identification of wetlands;
(d) Management of wetlands;
(e) Management of BORAs; and
(f) Identification and protection of individual trees.
Identification of SNAs
8.4 Based on aerial photography provided by Dr Blaschke 84 and Dr van Meeuwen-Dijkgraff, 85

Plimmerton Farm has been used for farming for at least 100 years. Consequently, the
present-day land use is dominated by pastoral land used for grazing dry-stock, with an area
of pine plantation in the north-east of the site. 86
8.5 However, despite the extensive use of the land for primary production, the submissions and
evidence presented to us indicated that there are important remnant and revegetating areas
of indigenous vegetation on Plimmerton Farm. We saw those areas, and the important areas
of wetland, during our site visit.
8.6 Consistent with several submissions to the Hearing Panel by non-experts on the biodiversity
values of these areas, the expert ecologists agreed that several areas of terrestrial
vegetation met the criteria to be considered SNA. 87
8.7 The most comprehensive list and map of SNAs was presented in the evidence of
Mr Goldwater and we received no evidence to challenge Mr Goldwater's assessment of
these areas (though there was argument as to additional potential areas of SNAs that he had
not mapped). The map of the SNAs changed throughout the process (primarily reflecting the
inclusion or exclusion of wetlands which is addressed below). We accept and adopt the
version of Map A-PFZ-2 88 as attached to Messrs Cumming and Anderson's right of reply
(and adopt their s 32AA assessment). In addition, as discussed below and in Section 4, we
recommend that comprehensive identification and mapping of significant areas of biodiversity
occur at the time of subdivision consent.
84
S 32 Freshwater Report.
85
Statement of evidence.
86
Mr Wilson, Stormwater Report and Dr Blaschke, Freshwater Report.
87
Joint Witness Statement paragraph 2.1.
88
Overall page number 215.
48
Management of SNAs
8.8 Identification of SNAs is an important step in meeting the first objective in Chapter 8 that
seeks to protect the 'values' of SNAs from inappropriate subdivision, use and development,
and restore values where appropriate (ECOPFZ-O1).
8.9 However, to meet this objective we consider two additional steps are required;
(a) a comprehensive understanding of the values of the SNAs so that they may be
protected, or restored where appropriate; and
(b) a policy and rules framework that ensures the SNAs will be protected, or restored
where appropriate
Understanding of values
8.10 It was apparent from the submissions and evidence we received that understanding of the
values of the SNAs was not as comprehensive as it could be, or would need to be, to protect
or restore the values of the SNAs on Plimmerton Farm.
8.11 For example, Dr van Meeuwen-Dijkgraff (evidence para 144) stated that there had not been
a lizard survey of the site, "so there is little knowledge of what species occur on the site and
where they occur."
8.12 The lizard survey provided as part of the supporting documents was considered a
'reconnaissance-level' assessment by the report's author 89 which was described as a
"desktop review matched with a coarse, site specific assessment of habitat suitability."
8.13 We therefore consider Dr van Meeuwen-Dijkgraff's assessment of the lizard values on the
site to be accurate, but we also consider that the level of information provided in Mr Usher's
report is appropriate for a plan change as stated in Dr Blaschke's rebuttal statement. 90
8.14 We note that Mr Usher's report recommends a Phase 2 survey that would investigate the
populations of lizards prior to the development of the site. A recommendation supported in
evidence by Dr Blaschke 91 and during questioning at the hearing by Mr Goldwater. This
detailed survey would serve to inform development options and also guide any required
translocation of lizards should they be found in an area that was considered appropriate for
development, consistent with the policies of Chapter 8.
89
Mr Usher (Appendix 2 to Dr Blaschke's Statement of Evidence).
90
At [25].
91
At [52].
49
8.15 This is one example of where the information provided to us was appropriate for a plan
change process, but of insufficient detail to enable detailed development plans to be
produced.
8.16 We consider that a comprehensive understanding of the biodiversity values of the PFZ is
required at time of subdivision (through SUBPFZ-IR-1, SUBPFZ-P5 and the strategic policies)
and the s 32AA assessment for this process is set out in Section 4. From an ecological
perspective such an assessment is required to achieve the objectives and policies of PC18,
ensure that the processes implemented are certain and that they can be efficiently and
effectively implemented. Clear identification of these areas, and their values is also required
to comply with the relevant planning provisions (both higher order, and regional plans,
including the PNRP) and the Minister's expectations.
8.17 This has also necessitated a new definition of Areas of Significant Terrestrial Indigenous
Biodiversity and consequential drafting corrections to ensure correct referencing. The
inclusion of Areas of Significant Terrestrial Indigenous Biodiversity and their identification
(through a Policy 23 of the RPS assessment) is critical to fill the present uncertainty and lack
of detailed information as to the ecological values within the PFZ.
8.18 Further, we consider that this requirement will address issues raised in submissions, 92 and
supporting evidence, 93 relating to unknown indigenous biodiversity values that may exist
outside of the extent of identified SNAs, wetlands and BORAs. This was accepted in the
rebuttal evidence of Messrs Cumming and Anderson. 94
SNA rules framework
8.19 As notified PC18 contained policies and rules designed to protect SNAs that have been
refined in response to submissions and evidence (s 42A report, rebuttal evidence and the
right of reply of Messrs Cumming and Anderson). We accept and adopt those responses
(and s 32AA assessments) and focus our attention on the following matters remaining in
disagreement.
Effects management hierarchy
8.20 We recognise that the 'effects management hierarchy' provided in ECOPFZ-P5 for the
protection of SNAs reflects the latest evolution of the 'avoid-remedy-mitigate' approach
enshrined in the RMA (as contained in the NPSFM 2020).
92
For example, Mr Gow, QEII and F&B.
93
For example, Dr van Meeuwen-Dijkgraff at [159].
94
At [52].
50
8.21 The first step in this hierarchy is to "avoid adverse effects on identified indigenous
biodiversity values where practicable." Legal submissions for Forest and Bird 95 and QEII 96
argued that this hierarchy did not protect biodiversity values. Rather, in their submissions, it
allows for effects on SNAs from any activity so long as the hierarchy is worked through. As a
result, in their submission, this policy is not based on the effects of the activity, rather simply
that there is not a more practicable option.
8.22 Dr van Meeuwen-Dijkgraff provided evidence in support of these submissions and argued
that in some cases avoidance of adverse effects will be the only way to protect biodiversity
values. 97 We received no evidence contrary to that view and therefore accept Dr van
Meeuwen-Dijkgraff's evidence on this issue.
8.23 Dr van Meeuwen-Dijkgraff made several suggestions on the adverse effects that should be
avoided 98 and we adopt two of these effects in a revised ECOPFZ-P5 to ensure the protection
of SNAs in the PFZ.
(a) Loss of ecosystem types and their extents; and
(b) Reduction in abundance of threatened species.
8.24 We consider that avoiding these effects are appropriate for the management of the SNAs
and are also able to be quantified in an AEE and hence helpful for plan users to manage the
effects of development. We agree with counsel for QEII and Forest & Bird that avoidance in
this instance relates to more than minor adverse effects and excludes transitory effects. 99
8.25 We also make a minor change to the first line of ECOPFZ-P5 to include reference to Areas of
Significant Terrestrial Indigenous Biodiversity, which may be identified through subdivision
consent (SUBPFZ-IR-1 and the strategic policies). Again, this responds to concerns of
submitters that additional significant biodiversity areas may be identified.
8.26 We consider that our acceptance, in part, of the submissions of QEII and Forest & Bird will
better align with the overall protection and enhancement outcomes that we have already
identified are required for the PFZ and its sensitive receiving environments. In relation to s
32AA our recommended changes:
(a) most appropriately reflect, and efficiently and effectively achieve, objective ECOPFZ-O1
and strategic outcome objective PFZ-O3 for the reasons above; and
95
At [8].
96
At [64].
97
At [172].
98
Ibid.
99
We apply this same application to the use of the word "avoid" throughout our report.
51
(b) in relation to the efficiency and effectiveness we consider that they will provide
significant environmental and cultural benefit at little additional cost given the size and
opportunities of the PFZ (and accepted and our proposed amendments to policy
ECOPFZ-P8 as set out below).
Roads in SNAs
8.27 The notified PC18 contained a specific policy and rule to provide for public roads in SNAs.
This enabling policy and rule was deleted in the PCC right of reply. We agree with deleting
such a broad policy and rely on the analysis and s 32AA evaluation presented by Mr
Cumming and Mr Anderson. 100
8.28 We also agree with the inclusion by Messrs Cumming and Anderson providing a consenting
pathway where there is a functional need for the activity in (or to traverse) that location.
Following the process of identifying indigenous biodiversity values through subdivision
consent, if there is a functional need for a road to traverse a SNA, we consider that this can
be progressed through the current policy ECOPFZ-P8 and associated provisions, subject to a
condition that any development under the provisions of this policy avoids 101 adverse effects
on:
(a) the values of SNA 049 Camborne Bush.
8.29 This reflects that Camborne Bush is a SNA containing broadleaved forest with a diverse
canopy, whereas the other SNAs on site are predominately of regenerating kanuka and
manuka (as described in ECOPFZ - Appendix 1: Schedule of Significant Natural Areas). We
rely on these descriptions of the SNAs as we received no evidence questioning their
accuracy. During the hearing Dr van Meeuwen-Dijkgraff agreed that some areas of SNAs
have greater ecological values than other areas. That reflects the broader evidence and our
site visit.
8.30 Finally, we consider, for reasons set out in Section 11, that the primary collector road
requires policy recognition. It appears from the indicative plans that it will cross a section of
wetland 102 and also SNA. For the SNA it appears to us (from evidence as to values and our
site visit) that the there is ample crossing opportunity without causing more than minor
ecological effects. Dr van Meeuwen-Dijkgraff told us during the hearing that she had worked
with the Gillies Group before and found a good alternative solution. She hoped the same
could occur here and noted that if a minor loss with suitable remediation it could, in her view,
be acceptable. We consider that specific mention of the collector road is appropriate and
100
At [79].
101
Using the same definition as set out above to the word "avoid".
102
For the wetland it will need to be designed to accord with, and obtain consent as may be required, under the NES-FW, and we make
no additional comment on that.
52
have amended policy ECOPFZ-P8 accordingly. In doing so we note that we have ensured
that the same protections apply to the collector road as to all other activities, it is simply that
it has express mention within the policy.
8.31 We consider that our acceptance, in part, of PDL's submission on this matter enables the
overall protection and enhancement outcomes for the PFZ while enabling the significant
social, cultural and economic benefits as explained in Sections 6 and 15. In relation to s
32AA our recommended changes:
and strategic outcome objectives PFZ-O1 and PFZ-O3 for the reasons above, and for
the collector road in Section 11;
significant environmental and cultural benefit at limited additional cost, given the size
and opportunities of the PFZ (and accord with our recommendations on policy ECOPFZ-
P5 above); and
(c) in relation to the collector road the express recognition of it will provide efficient and
effective outcomes of recognising the importance of the primary collector road as set
out in Section 10 while ensuring it is developed within appropriate environmental limits.
Vegetation clearance and tracks
8.32 The notified and s 42 versions of PC18 provided for the removal of vegetation in SNAs as a
permitted activity in certain situations (ECOPFZ-R1).
8.33 This rule was the subject of several submissions and evidence, which was focussed mainly
on the vegetation clearance for tracks, including from GWRC, QEII and Forest & Bird.
8.34 We note that the right of reply version of PC18 has changed the status of vegetation
clearance for a new track to controlled, which is broadly consistent with the evidence of
Dr Steer. 103 However, Dr Steer also sought that controlled activity status should be subject
to the new path being in accordance with a 'tracks network plan' 104 and also the PCC Track
Standards Manual. 105
8.35 Forest & Bird submitted that this activity should be RDA 106 and QEII submitted it should be
non-complying. 107 The supporting evidence for both submitters from Dr van Meeuwen-
Dijkgraff argues the status should be controlled or RDA. 108
103
At [26].
104
Ibid.
105
Presentation summary at [10].
106
Legal submissions at [15].
107
Legal submissions at [69]-[72].
53
8.36 We consider that the approach suggested by Dr Steer enables public enjoyment of SNAs
through the provision of tracks, whilst appropriately managing the potential effects on SNAs
from track creation. We therefore amend ECOPFZ-R1(2) to include that the track is consistent
with the Movement Network of the Precinct Plan and any new track is developed in
accordance with PCC's Tracks Standards Manual, but otherwise accept the right of reply
version of Messrs Cumming and Anderson.
8.37 In its comments on our draft report Forest & Bird commented on the wording of ECOPFZ-
R1(2) resulted in the matters not becoming conditions for the controlled rule but rather
matters of control. We have corrected the drafting of the rule to respond to this comment.
8.38 Apart from our minor changes we accept and adopt the s 32AA evaluation of Messrs
Cumming and Anderson. In relation to s 32AA our recommended changes we consider that
they:
and strategic outcome objective PFZ-O3 for the reasons above; and
significant social, cultural and environmental (in terms of appreciation and educational
value) benefit at little additional cost given the constraints and process proposed.
Removal of non-indigenous vegetation in an SNA
8.39 The notified and s 42A versions of PC18 provided for the removal of non-indigenous
vegetation in SNAs or BORAs as a permitted activity (ECOPFZ-R2).
8.40 The Planning JWS indicates that there was an agreement to delete this rule 109 because
indigenous vegetation can have habitat value, with an agreement in principle that this can be
managed through amendments to ECOPFZ-R1 and ECOPFZ-R3. 110
8.41 This issue is discussed further in the rebuttal evidence of Messrs Cumming and Anderson, 111
but no change is made to the rule which we recognise may be an oversight.
8.42 Despite the JWS agreement, we note that in the right of reply version of PC18, this rule
ECOPFZ-R2 has been amended rather than deleted, and consequential amendments to
ECOPFZ-R1 and ECOPFZ-R3 have not occurred.
8.43 We agree that non-indigenous vegetation can have habitat value and that its removal within
an SNA should not be a permitted activity unless they have been carefully considered. The
108
At [125].
109
At 3.3(b).
110
At 3.3(a).
111
At [40] to [42].
54
proposed approach in Messrs Cumming and Anderson's right of reply version of PC18 for the
activity to be permitted if the "non-indigenous vegetation has not been identified as providing
habitat with significant indigenous biodiversity in an EIBMP" does not reflect a precautionary
approach and is not supported.
8.44 We prefer the approach outlined in Dr Steer's evidence and presentation summary, which is
to amend ECOPFZ-R1 and ECOPFZ-R3 to refer to 'vegetation' broadly and delete ECOPFZ-R2.
We note this is also consistent with the agreement in the Planning JWS and the relief sought
by other submitters. We also consider the addition of an amendment to ECOPFZ-R1 will allow
vegetation or trimming to allow for carrying out activities in accordance with a Ecosystems
and Indigenous Biodiversity Management Plan approved by Porirua City Council would
assist with the restoration and maintenance of SNAs, other significant areas and BORAs.
8.45 We note that the removal of pest plants (as opposed to non-indigenous) in a SNA, other
significant area and / or BORA is permitted by ECOPFZ-R4. The interpretation of this rule is
assisted by the inclusion of a definition of 'pest' in Messrs Cumming and Anderson's right of
reply version of PC18. 112
8.46 We consider that our recommendations, and acceptance of Dr Steer's approach, better align
with the overall protection and enhancement outcomes that we have already identified as
required for the PFZ and its sensitive receiving environments. In relation to s 32AA our
recommended changes:
for the reasons above; and
environmental benefit at little additional cost given the controlled activity status
recommended.
Future management of SNAs
8.47 We noted on our site visit that some areas identified as SNAs are already fenced to prevent
stock access, however ongoing management (e.g. pest control) will be required to protect
and restore the values of the SNAs.
8.48 Ms Toleman's legal submission on behalf of Forest and Bird considered ongoing pest
management provisions in PC18 were high level and brief. 113 We agree and include ongoing
(as necessary) pest management as an issue to be included as component of the EIBMP
112
At [5].
113
At [54]-[66].
55
(required at time of subdivision consent through SUBPFZ-IR-1 and SUBPFZ-P5). This will
ensure that the necessary detail will be developed at the appropriate time.
8.49 In addition, we consider an additional policy (ECOPFZ-P13) is required to provide direction for
best practice pest control across the PFZ, as sought in Forest and Bird's submission, 114
which then links to the EIBMP. We consider that this will better align with the overall
protection and enhancement outcomes that we have already identified. In relation to s 32AA
our recommended change:
(a) most appropriately reflects, and efficiently and effectively achieves, objective ECOPFZ-
O1 and strategic outcome objective PFZ-O3; and
(b) in relation to the efficiency and effectiveness we consider that the additional direction
will achieve environmental benefit and the greater certainty will assist in reducing costs.
Identification of areas of significant terrestrial indigenous biodiversity outside of SNAs

and BORAs
8.50 As already mentioned (Section 4), and raised by many submitters, including Forest and Bird
and QEII, and accepted by the experts on behalf of PCC and also by PDL, there are (highly)
likely to be areas within the PFZ that contain significant terrestrial indigenous biodiversity
outside of those currently identified. This was a key issue of concern for submitters and it
was accepted by PDL that further investigations would be required to ensure appropriate
protection occurred.
8.51 As explained, we recommend that these areas are identified through subdivision consents
with guidance from both the subdivision and the strategic policies. There was discussion
during the hearing that identification of these areas would be best done over time at each
stage of development (see Section 4). While we accept that areas change over time our
primary concern is to ensure that these areas are identified over the entire PFZ at the time of
subdivision. That all the development of the whole to be fully coordinated and the protection
and enhancement of those areas to commence immediately, not wait 10-15 years. We
consider that benefit outweighs any potential costs and is the most effective and efficient way
to address a key concern for submitters (see Section 4). We therefore agree with Messrs
Cumming and Anderson's s 32AA assessment in their reply as far as it extends to that
identification.
Identification of wetlands
8.52 The identification of wetlands within the PFZ was a key concern of many submitters and the
subject of much discussion during the hearing.
114
At [65(c)].
56
8.53 There was widespread agreement about the location and values of the Taupō Swamp
complex. The Ecology JWS recorded an agreement that it is an 'outstanding natural wetland'
consistent with its status as a wetland with 'outstanding indigenous biodiversity values' in the
PNRP. 115 (Schedule A3).
8.54 The majority of Taupō Swamp lies to the west of SH1 and is not in the PFZ, but of
importance are the two 'arms' of the Taupō Swamp complex that are to the east of SH1 and
lie within the PFZ. These areas are shown as PCC043 and PCC044 in Annexure A of Mr
Goldwater's evidence.
8.55 Furthermore, there was agreement that areas of wetland on PFZ also meet the criteria to be
considered SNAs that are also shown in Annexure A of Mr Goldwater's evidence.
8.56 In addition to the wetlands identified above, there was agreement amongst the expert
ecologists that there were areas of wetland within the PFZ that were not identified in the
PC18 maps or supporting evidence. 116 As mentioned in Sections 2 and 4 above, there was
considerable argument over this issue and the most appropriate way for wetlands to be
identified, and hence protected, through PC18.
8.57 During the hearing, all parties agreed that the recent change in national planning documents
(the NPS-FM and NES-FW) complicated the issue of identification and management of
wetlands in PC18. These national level documents substantially changed the management
of wetlands, but also provided a clear direction that regional councils must map wetlands
within 10 years of the commencement date. 117
8.58 The Planning JWS stated that there was agreement that there was no preclusion to mapping
wetlands in PC18, but doing so would not replace the requirements for regional councils to
map wetlands under the NPSFM.
8.59 These submissions were accepted in part in the rebuttal evidence of Messrs Cumming and
Anderson. 118 The track change version of PC18 included a new policy on the 'Identification of
Natural Wetlands' (now ECOPFZ-P4):
To assist the integrated management of natural wetlands, identify and list within
ECOPFZ - Appendix-2: Schedule of Natural Wetlands natural wetlands identified and
mapped by Greater Wellington Regional Council and indicative natural wetlands
identified and mapped by Porirua City Council.
115
Schedule A3.
116
Ecology JWS at paragraph 2.1.e.
117
NPS-FM at clause 3.23.
118
At [25(d)].
57
Note: The identification and management of natural wetlands is a function of Greater

Wellington Regional Council. Refer to the National Environmental Standard for
Freshwater 2020 and the Natural Resources Plan for the Wellington Region.
8.60 During the hearing, Mr Gardner-Hopkins (on behalf of PDL) submitted that the inclusion of
'indicative wetlands' in PC18 119 would be inappropriate because, amongst other things, that
the indicative wetlands would persist (even if inaccurate) until a plan change process could
remove them.
8.61 Mr Pemberton (on behalf of DOC) and Ms Gepp (on behalf of QEII) submitted that indicative
wetlands should be mapped in PC18. Ms Gepp further submitted that there are a number of
features on the planning maps that are indicative (e.g. roads and tracks) and considered that
their presence is no different from indicative wetlands. 120
8.62 Following the hearing, policy ECOPFZ-P4 was amended in Messrs Cumming and Anderson's
right of reply version of PC18 to remove reference to indicative wetlands (with the reasons
discussed in paragraph 82).
8.63 Notwithstanding the jurisdictional issues around wetland identification, we consider that it is
imperative that all natural inland wetlands on Plimmerton Farm are mapped at the time of
subdivision to allow for the development to meet the Minister's expectations and the very
high requirements for wetland protection under the NPS-FM and NES-FW.
8.64 We therefore consider that the identification of wetlands should be addressed through
subdivision consents with support through the policies (SUBPFZ-P5) and the Strategic
Objectives and Policies (see section 4), which will require detailed mapping of all wetlands
on the site in conjunction with GWRC. We note this exercise is proposed as part of the
EIMBP process in Messrs Cumming and Anderson's reply version of PC18 (and contained in
SUBPFZ-IR-1).
8.65 We also consider that our recommended process will address the uncertainty about the
extent of wetland in Precinct D in PC18 as notified.
8.66 The Ecology JWS121 stated that:
(a) Precinct D once supported a hydrologically intact wetland that was historically a part of
the Taupō Swamp Complex;
(b) The land has been subject to farming practices for more than 100 years;
119
Legal submissions at [38]-[40].
120
At [19].
121
At [5.1].
58
(c) Based on the level of information available the experts are unable to clearly identify the
extent of Precinct D that should be classified as wetland; and
(d) The methodology for addressing the information gap should be informed by the NPS-
FW (refer to clause 3.23(3) for NPS-FM).
8.67 Precinct D was previously identified as a commercial centre for the Plimmerton Farm
development in PC18, but because of the uncertainty around its wetland status and what that
would mean for the ability to develop the land, it has been subsumed into Precinct A as
addressed in Section 13.
8.68 Overall:
(a) consistent with our discussion above we accept the right of reply version of Map A-
PFZ-2 and the approach (and s 32AA evaluation) adopted by Messrs Cumming and
Anderson in relation to the mapping of wetlands; and
(b) we recommend that all natural wetlands within the PFZ be identified at time of
subdivision, as set out in Section 4.
Management of wetlands
8.69 As with the issue of wetland identification, the management of wetlands on PFZ was also an
issue of concern raised in submissions, questions, evidence and discussions at the hearing.
The previously mentioned change in national direction arising from the NPS-FM and NES-
FW was also highly relevant to this issue. The key issue for submitters was that wetlands
would be protected from the adverse effects of land uses associated with development of the
PFZ.
8.70 PCC consider that the management of wetlands (as it relates to the provisions of this
chapter) is a regional council function and this was not in dispute. For example, Ms Sitarz
stated122 that "PC18 does not need to regulate activities within wetlands, so long as it does
not provide for activities within wetlands".
8.71 We consider that Messrs Cumming and Anderson's right of reply versions of Objective
ECOPFZ-O3 (natural wetlands are protected from inappropriate subdivision, use and
development) and Policy ECOPFZ-P6 (require subdivision, use and development to avoid
adverse effects on the values of natural wetlands) are necessary and appropriate provisions
to manage the potential for adverse effects from land uses on wetlands. ECOPFZ-O3 is also
consistent with experts and submitters seeking an objective for protection. 123 We therefore
122
In her hearing Presentation summary.
123
For example, Dr van Meeuwen-Dijkgraff at [173] and Mr Pemberton's legal submissions on behalf of the Director-General at [10].
59
accept the reasoning of, and adopt the s 32AA evaluation of, Messrs Cumming and
Anderson.
8.72 As already discussed, the inclusion of ECOPFZ-O3 is consistent with submitters seeking an
objective for protection of natural wetlands – an approach with which Messrs Cumming and
Anderson agreed, and so do we. We have added "consistency with" Te Mana o te Wai to
link to objective PFZ-O1 and also the NPSFM.
8.73 A number of submitters, including Forest and Bird, QEII, and the Director-General of
Conservation, sought the inclusion of avoiding loss of extent of natural wetlands into Policy
ECOPFZ-P6. We agree, especially because it aligns with the NPSFM.
8.74 In terms of s 32AA we consider that our additional amendments are effective and efficient
and particular give the required protection to natural wetlands under the NPSFM to which, to
the extent relevant we must give effect to. We also consider that these changes better fulfil
the purpose of the RMA and provide greater clarity to plan users.
Management of BORAs
8.75 The identification of areas within the PFZ to buffer and augment SNAs and provide
opportunities for biodiversity offsetting and restoration provides a substantial opportunity to
enhance the natural environment of the zone and to achieve positive environmental
outcomes from its development. Such restoration provides an opportunity to greatly increase
the indigenous biodiversity values in the PFZ.
8.76 The BORAs are currently greater in size than the existing SNA and wetlands and restoration
of these areas therefore has the potential to triple the area of protected areas on the PFZ.
The area of PFZ set aside for BORAs is 88.1ha, 124 which is over double the area currently
protected as SNAs or wetland (43.5ha).
8.77 Our expectation is that BORAs will become SNAs in the future following appropriate
restoration and management as the development of Plimmerton Farm progresses. When
BORAs reach this status over time, we anticipate that the provisions relating to SNAs will be
adopted providing the protection for these areas as sought by Dr van Meeuwen-Dijkgraff's
evidence. 125 However, this time period is beyond the 10-year life of the plan. We therefore
do not consider that specific provisions, beyond what has been proposed, are required but
we have amended the definition of BORAs to make it clear they are likely to become SNAs in
the future. In relation to s 32AA this change is very minor and provides greater clarity for the
future intent of BORAs. This is the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives and is
efficient and effective in terms of benefits and costs.
124
PCC closing legal submission at [53].
125
At [169]-[170].
60
8.78 We consider that our recommendations will provide greater certainty about the restoration,
ownership and ongoing management of the BORAs, which was a concern we heard at the
hearing and which we accept. For example, the LMP was considered by many to be
deficient in not requiring an obligation for the restoration of BORAs. The EIBMP proposed in
the right of reply version of PC18 was an improvement on this issue and we have added to it
through clear strategic policy direction.
Mapping of BORAs
8.79 PDL in its comments on our draft report raised concerns over the location of the BORAs and
the differences between the Precinct Plans and the Planning Maps. The notified version of
PC18 defined BORAs as areas identified on the Planning Map not to the Precinct Plans.
That definition has remained. Therefore, anyone looking at the location of BORAs would rely
on the Planning Map as the definitive answer.
8.80 We agree with PDL that as notified the Precinct Plans and the Planning Maps for BORAs
were inconsistent. We also agree that that this is an issue for PDL. As no one recognised
this inconsistency there were no submissions and we received no evidence on it. For
example, we do not know if the areas of BORA were told about (including in PCC's reply)
relied on the Precinct Plan or Planning Maps areas. Our understand is, and by definition it
should have been, the later.
8.81 It appears as PDL says that the Precinct Maps were brought in line with the Planning Maps
through the s42A report. Unfortunately that change, as the error with notification, was not
identified by any party. We have closed the hearing and consider that changing the Planning
Map (which is the critical map for BORAs as opposed to the Precinct Plans) goes beyond
what we can address at this stage. It is likely submitters (and certainly we did) referred to the
Planning Map.
8.82 For completeness, while not raised by PDL, we considered the use of Schedule 1, clause 16
but, for the reasons above, do not consider that such a change would be a "minor change"
as required by that provision.
8.83 While we have sympathy for PDL, we do not consider we can make this amendment now.
There is a resource consent avenue for development within a BORA. Alternatively, during
the process there has been mention of 'folding' PC18 into the proposed district plan at the
right time. It appears from what PDL said in its comments that subdivision is unlikely to start
in the affected areas and there may be an opportunity to amend the Planning Maps through
such a process.
61
Cats
8.84 A number of submitters sought that ownership of cats be not allowed in the PFZ. In
particular, before us we heard a detailed and passionate presentation from Ms Werner.
Counsel for PDL informed us 126 that PDL is not opposed to future discussions on the
potential management of cats (and possible mechanisms).
8.85 We consider that the management of cats is a matter appropriately addressed through the
subdivision consents and have included that accordingly to the information requirements
(SUBPFZ-IR-1). In relation to s 32AA we consider this minor change is the most appropriate
way to achieve the objectives and is efficient and effective in terms of benefits and costs.
9. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT (CHAPTER 5)
Scope of Chapter
9.1 The Stormwater Management chapter provides a framework for managing the effects of
development on the receiving waters in accordance with PFZ-O3. Hence the provisions of
this chapter are focussed on managing rain that falls in the PFZ, but the purpose of this
management is largely for the benefit of receiving waters downstream of the PFZ.
9.2 The list of submitters on this matter is set out in the s 42A report. 127 An in-depth discussion
of stormwater management issues is contained in the s 42A report which we accept and
adopt as updated through Messrs Cumming and Anderson's rebuttal, hearing and reply
evidence. This includes their s 32AA assessment.
Stormwater management
9.3 Rain that falls on the PFZ flows as stormwater to Te Awarua-o-Porirua Harbour through three
main pathways. The three drainage catchments on the PFZ as mapped on page 4 of the
Stormwater Management Site Assessment (Notified PC18, Attachment 6) as:
(a) The northern part of the PFZ (approximately 152ha) drains to the Taupō Swamp;
(b) The southern part of the PFZ (approximately 170ha) drains to the Taupō Steam; and
(c) The north-eastern corner of the site (approximately 63ha) drains into the Kakaho
Stream, which discharges into the Pauatahanui Inlet.
9.4 All of the receiving waters of Plimmerton Farm have notable biodiversity values:
(a) Taupō Swamp is a wetland with outstanding indigenous biodiversity values;
126
As invited by the Hearing Panel by memorandum dated 20 October 2020.
127
At [175].
62
(b) Pauatahanui Inlet (saltmarsh and tidal flats) which have outstanding indigenous
biodiversity values and Te Awarua-o-Porirua Harbour – Pauatahanui Arm and the
Onepoto Arm which are significant habitats for nesting birds;
(c) Taupō Stream and its tributaries are rivers with significant indigenous ecosystems; and
(d) Kakaho Stream and its tributaries are rivers with significant indigenous ecosystems.
9.5 We consider that the importance of these receiving waters is reflected in the stormwater
management proposed for the PFZ as notified and amended through the process as
proposed through the various evidence versions of Messrs Cumming and Anderson. As set
out in Section 4 we consider that a contribution to enhancement of receiving water quality is
required and have amended Objective SW PFZ-O1 accordingly. Our s 32AA justification for
enhancement is set out in Section 4. In a similar manner we recommend deleting
"maintained and" in Policy SW PFZ-P1(6). Additional reasoning and s 32AA justification for
this is set out in Section 6.
9.6 The large-scale adoption of Water Sensitive Design (WSD) is the core of the proposed
stormwater management for the PFZ that is reflected in SW PFZ-O1. The application of WSD
at the scale of Plimmerton Farm was recognised as best practice in New Zealand, with
Mr Smaill 128 commenting that this represented a 'step change for Wellington' at the hearing.
We do recommend reference to Te Mana o te Wai within the objective given its direct
relevance to the receiving waters and the importance of that approach as explained in
Section 6 (and in the NPSFM). We also consider this addition to be efficient and effective
and appropriately tie together the outcomes sought in the objectives.
9.7 A second objective to achieve hydraulic neutrality (SW PFZ-O2) is important to manage
downstream flood effects during periods of rainfall.
9.8 We received submissions about flooding downstream of Plimmerton Farm, in particular from
St Theresa's Parish, The Archdiocese of Wellington and St Theresa's School and residents
of 2 - 20 James Street. Mr Baker, from the parish, presented at the hearing on their behalf.
He (and also Mr Botha) provided compelling images of the problem. Therefore, we are
cognisant of the need to not exacerbate flooding issues downstream of the PFZ and to
require flood hazard opportunities where practicable (as proposed by Messrs Cumming and
Anderson in their rebuttal evidence).
9.9 Mr Baker submitted further that the development of PFZ should be done with hydraulic
positivity as an objective (as with the nearby NBC Projects development at 25 James Street).
128
Evidence at [4].
63
He also explained how the Plimmerton Heights subdivision (Mo Street area) had aggravated
their flooding woes. This subdivision did not have a requirement of hydraulic neutrality.
9.10 While we have considerable sympathy for the position the James Street submitters find
themselves in that is, unfortunately, a pre-existing problem. The provisions of PC18 will
ensure the flooding from water originating off Plimmerton Farm will be no worse than present
(and potentially it will be reduced). We consider that the response in the PC18 provisions is
appropriate and that hydraulic positivity is not required (although we retain the policy
provision in SW PFZ-P2(7) requiring identification of flood reduction opportunities and, where
practicable, those being realised).
9.11 The Engineering JWS contained few areas of disagreement in relation to stormwater
management, and those issues were further reduced during pre-hearing evidence exchange
and discussions.
9.12 The evidence submitted and the discussions during the hearing identified two remaining
areas of disagreement under this topic.
9.13 First Dr Afoa sought that riparian margins be planted to mitigate the effects of heat of
stormwater. She supported QEII's approach that such planting be required through the LMP
(noting too the requirements of hazard management). We have accepted this in part by
including in the information requirements for subdivision consent the identification of the
extent of riparian planting and its ongoing management. In terms of s 32AA we consider this
to effectively and efficiently achieve the objectives and also to provide onsite (and offsite)
ecological benefits. While there are associated costs, we consider they are reasonable and
required to achieve the necessary ecological protection.
9.14 Second, Dr Afoa considered that rain tanks will be necessary to achieve the stormwater
mitigation required 129 and recommended that they be mandatory in evidence. 130
9.15 Mr Wilson was of the opinion that rain tanks are one management approach that may
achieve the required stormwater mitigation and considered that mandatory rain tanks could
foreclose on other management options that might be equally, or more, appropriate. When
questioned on this issue, he suggested soil remediation, pervious pavement and communal
facilities may all increase infiltration to achieve similar benefits to rain tanks.
9.16 While Dr Afoa continued to seek specific provision of rainwater tanks she did accept that if
rain tanks were not specifically required, then a catchment flow management solution was
required. She developed with Mr Wilson an agreed addition to SW PFZ-P1 (clause 1) to
provide that. This was incorporated through the rebuttal version of PC18. We consider that
129
Presentation summary at [9].
130
Evidence at [87].
64
this approach provides flexibility of options to be determined through the detailed

development and consenting process.
9.17 We therefore propose no further changes to the stormwater management provisions of PC18
and would like to record our appreciation for the endeavours of the engineering and planning
experts that have provided us with an agreed and comprehensive suite of stormwater
management provisions.
9.18 In relation to s 32AA we accept and adopt the evaluations undertaken by Messrs Cumming
and Anderson in their s 42A report and evidence (including their reply).
10. EARTHWORKS AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
Scope of chapter
10.1 The Earthworks Chapter 9 provides a framework for managing the effects of erosion and
sediment on the receiving waters in accordance with PFZ-O3. Hence the provisions of this
chapter are focussed on managing land disturbance effect in the PFZ, but the purpose of this
management is largely for the benefit of receiving waters downstream of the PFZ.
10.2 The list of submitters on this matter is set out in the s 42A report. 131 An in-depth discussion
of earthwork and sediment control issues is contained in the s 42A report 132 which, subject to
those matters we address below, we accept and adopt as updated through Messrs Cumming
and Anderson's rebuttal (which included a significant change in approach), hearing and reply
evidence. This includes their s 32AA assessment.
Earthworks
10.3 Consistent with our description of the values of the receiving environment for stormwater
management, the risks to the receiving environment from earthworks has led to a set of
provisions that were described as better-than-best practice during the hearing.
10.4 We received several submissions raising concerns about sediment effects downstream of
the PFZ, including compelling images of slumps and sediment releases under the current
land use. 133 Consistent with those images Mr Blyde (PCC's earthworks expert) described the
existing sediment run-off from the PFZ as significant during discussion at the hearing.
10.5 The potential risk of sediment releases was also recognised by Dr Blaschke, who considered
"accelerated sedimentation is the single most significant potential effect of the development
131
At [252].
132
At [253]-[297].
133
Including Mr Mowday; Ms Smith; Mr Gow: Mr Fitzgerald; and Ms Beamsley.
65
envisaged by PC18". 134 Dr Blaschke further stated that "better than current best practice"
sediment management will be required to address adverse effects from sediment.
10.6 As mentioned in Section 2 the rebuttal version of PC18 proposed by Messrs Cumming and
Anderson took a significantly different approach. That was predicated on the fact that
GWRC regulates earthworks greater than 3,000m2 through its regional plans (and in
particular) the PNRP. It was agreed between Messrs Cumming and Anderson, and GWRC,
that GWRC is best placed to manage such matters and to achieve consistency between the
various plans and roles.
10.7 We recognise the complimentary nature of earthworks management between PCC and
GWRC. Mr Smaill had previously raised the issue of unnecessary duplication in evidence. 135
Messrs Cumming and Anderson addressed this issue in rebuttal evidence 136 and made
amendments to the provisions accordingly. Mr Smaill noted in his hearing presentation
summary that changes had been made to reflect the roles of the district and regional
councils. We accept that position (and the s 32AA assessment of Messrs Cumming and
Anderson accordingly).
10.8 While no longer relevant to PC18, Mr Smaill also considered that the earthworks
management of GWRC would constitute best practice once the GWRC guidelines were
updated (which is underway). 137 In addition, at the hearing Mr Smaill stated that GWRC can
require earthworks management beyond best practice in specific circumstances. From the
evidence we heard we accept that position.
10.9 That agreement fundamentally changed the scope of the earthworks discussion to ensuring
management of small-scale earthworks and to focus on other matters (cultural, infrastructure,
landscape etc). On those matters we support the changes (and the s 32 AA evaluation)
proposed in the rebuttal and right of reply evidence of Messrs Cumming and Anderson (in
particular, to policies EWPFZ-P1 and EW PFZ-P2). We consider that they, along with the
Erosion and Sediment Control Principles (ESCP) (see below) provide a robust framework
that will ensure better than best practice outcomes as relevant for small scale earthworks
and also appropriate management of other relevant effects of earthworks.
10.10 Critical to sediment management are the ESCP. The inclusion of flocculation in the ESCP is
consistent with the evidence we heard and with recommendation made by Ms Beamsley at
the hearing. We agree with the inclusion of flocculation more extensively in the erosion and
sediment control ‘toolbox' for PC18, but we appreciate the issue raised by QEII 138 that the
134
Evidence in chief at [86].
135
At [16].
136
At [137].
137
At [14].
138
Legal submission at [55].
66
ESCP appended to the earthworks chapter were not referenced in the revised policy
wording.
10.11 We agree that reference to the ESCP in the policies is important to ensure they are
considered during consent decisions. Messrs Cumming and Anderson's right of reply
version of PC18 has incorporated the ESCP into clause 3 of EW PFZ-P1, which we accept
(and adopt their s 32AA evaluation) and consider meets the relief sought by QEII.
10.12 As explained in Section 6, we have also included reference to Te Mana o te Wai in EW PFZ-
O1, EW PFZ-P1 and EW PFZ-P2 given its importance to ensuring protection of receiving water
bodies as well as recognition for cultural values and practices. We consider that such an
approach is efficient and effective and gives effect to the NPSFM. It provides additional
clarity and integration for plan users.
10.13 We also support the changes to the Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangatira Accidental Discovery
Protocol described in Messrs Cumming and Anderson's right of reply 139 to ensure the
protocol applies to all earthworks and that it is a requirement of PCC.
10.14 The Engineering JWS contained few areas of disagreement in relation to earthworks, and
those issues were addressed during pre-hearing evidence exchange and discussions. We
have therefore recommended no further changes to the earthworks provisions of PC18.
11. TRANSPORT
Scope of Chapter
11.1 The Transport Chapter provides a framework for the integrated transport network and will
include appropriate controls to manage the effects of the PFZ internal movement network,
connections with the external roading network and ensure an integrated and well-connected
zone.
The issues
11.2 Many submitters 140 raised issues relating to the integrated transport network and in particular
the need to ensure the promotion of active transport and range of transport options. This
included ensuring that the roading alignments are designed so that the roads support multi
modal transport throughout the PFZ. In addition, issues relating to connections to and from
PFZ, including the pedestrian and cycle access to the Plimmerton Station and the
intersection points with St Andrews Road.
139
At [102].
140
S 42A report at [455]-[458].
67
11.3 Another key issue was the alignment of the collector road (and potentially other roads)
through the SNAs.
11.4 Submissions received on transport issues are listed in the s 42A report. 141 That report lists
the areas of agreement and disagreement in relation to Transport and provides an in-depth
discussion of these issues 142 is set out.
11.5 We have carefully considered the s 32 report, submissions, the s 42A report, rebuttal
evidence and reply of Messrs Cumming and Anderson. While we have generally accepted
the evidence of Messrs Whittaker, Cummings and Anderson and Ms White in relation to the
Transport Chapter and the provisions of PC18, we have made changes as required to
ensure that PC18 will achieve an integrated transport network that promotes active transport
as the first and best choice. We consider that our recommendations provide the appropriate
direction to ensure a well-functioning (and connected) urban environment from a transport
perspective.
11.6 In relation to the submission points on the Transport Chapter (Chapter 6):
(b) those submissions aligned in part with our recommended version of PC18 in
Appendix 1 are accepted in part; and
are rejected,
for the reasons either set out in the s 42A report, rebuttal evidence, hearing presentation
summary and reply of Messrs Cumming and Anderson, or for the reasons we explain below.
Background
11.7 The Porirua Growth Strategy 2048143 anticipates a connected and active city as being one
that:
• Makes better use of existing transport networks and ensures new investments improve
connectivity and access in the city;
• Makes walking, cycling, and public transport viable choices for more people of varying
abilities;
141
At [439].
142
At [439]-[494].
143
At [26].
68
• Ensures better integrated land use and transport to support an increasingly compact
urban form;
• Changes the function of SH1, and SH58 (below Whitby) through the revocation
process to prioritise local connections for people, places and businesses;
• Improves safety for pedestrians and cyclists as well as other transport network users,
to eliminate death and serious injury; and
• Supports the reduction of carbon-based activities where practicable by encouraging

and assessing carbon neutral technologies as they become available.
11.8 The NPS-UD requires a range of housing types, with good access to transport, services, and
amenities. Overall, the PFZ anticipates providing integrated transport and movement
networks along with housing and business development near the existing Plimmerton Train
Station.
11.9 The s 32 report attached a Transport Report (Appendix 7) which assessed the site traffic
generation and distribution; external roading connections; impacts on the wider network
operation; and the internal roading hierarchy and typology.
11.10 The Transport Report provided a summary of the transport investigations that informed the
Plimmerton Farm Precinct Plan including an assessment of the transport network effects,
external roading connections and the internal roading hierarchy structure. The Report also
highlighted that the opening of Transmission Gully would likely have a marked impact on the
way both local traffic and 'through-district' traffic will distribute across the Porirua road
network including near the PFZ.
11.11 The Transport Report further noted that detailed consideration of the James Street
roundabout performance, including specific assessment of any development traffic additions,
would be required to be assessed at the time of subdivision.
Submissions, presentation and evidence
11.12 We received numerous submissions and evidence on the following key issues:
(a) An integrated transport network which promotes active transport;
(b) The location of the collector road and other roads within SNAs and BORAs;
(c) Additional traffic concerns;
(d) Road connections between Precincts and the Wider Area and provision of public
transport; and
69
(e) Road Typology.
An integrated transport network which promotes active transport
11.13 A key issue raised by Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency (Waka Kotahi) in its submission
and evidence related to ensuring that the Strategic Objectives recognise transport. In
addition, Waka Kotahi and other submitters such as Ms Cawthorn, sought greater provision
for active transport and multi-modal transport within PFZ. Ms Kearse and Ms Barrett on
behalf of Waka Kotahi identified that both the current Government Policy Statement on Land
Transport (GPS) and the proposed one promote a transformation of transport, with strategic
focusses on safety, better choice and to reduce emissions. The GPS 2021 requires that well
integrated urban development ensues. They also cited recent strategic documents of Waka
Kotahi that reinforce expectations for major changes in land use and transport in integrated
ways, and referred to the Wellington Regional Growth Framework and the NPS -UD as being
relevant requirements for ensuring, within the PFZ, the development of well-functioning
urban environments which provide a safe and connected transport network, at a policy level.
11.14 Ms Cawthorn advised that a number of councils across the country are undertaking
expensive retrofitting on street networks to achieve active transport and cities such as
Auckland, Christchurch and Nelson have developed street and road design guides
incorporating active transport. It was Ms Cawthorn's view that PC18 should provide for
access networks such that active and sustainable travel modes are the "first and best choice"
within the PFZ.
11.15 We were grateful for the evidence of Waka Kotahi and Ms Cawthorn and other submitters
who raised issues relating to the integrated transport network and the opportunity for active
transport as key components of the strategic objectives of the PFZ. We have taken on board
the evidence of Waka Kotahi and Ms Cawthorn by including an additional matter in strategic
objective - PFZ-O1 as (5) "connected and integrated infrastructure, active transport and the
safe and efficient operation of the transport network." We consider that this is necessary to
achieve a well-functioning urban environment (as required by the NPS-UD). In relation to s
32AA we consider that this addition to the objective is the most appropriate way to achieve
the purpose of the RMA for the reasons above. We consider that strategic recognition
efficiently and effectively sets the scene within PC18 for infrastructure generally, and
transport, in particular in delivering well-functioning environments. As such, the benefits
outweigh the costs.
11.16 Following consideration of the submissions and evidence presented at the hearing as set out
in Section 4 we have concluded that it is appropriate to provide a strategic policy (PFZ-P1)
direction to achieve a high-quality , well connected built forms that integrate with all transport
modes, especially active modes. That efficiently and effective achieves the objectives and
70
provides the policy direction in association with policy PFZ-P2, TRPFZ-01 and TRPFZ-P2. This
will ensure a well-connected built form by confirming the key roading alignments and
transport connections (in particular, intersection points with St Andrews Road and design and
timing of a pedestrian and cycle connection across St Andrews Road (which can then
connect to the train station).
11.17 In line with the amendment to the strategic objective PFZ-O1 and based on the evidence of
Waka Kotahi and Ms Cawthorn and a number of other submitters relating to the importance
of an integrated transport network, we also consider that it is necessary to ensure that the
Transport Network Objectives in Chapter 6 align with the strategic objective and zone
outcomes. We therefore recommend an amendment to TRPFZ-O1(4), TRPFZ-P2(4) and TRPFZ-
P3(3) to include reference to promoting active transport as a first choice. The s 32AA
evaluation for this reflects that for the objective, and this change ensures consistency (and
hence efficiency and effectiveness) throughout the PC18 framework.
The location of the primary collector road and other roads within wetlands, SNAs and
BORAs
11.18 As set out in Sections 4 and 8, evidence was also focused on the indicative location of the
primary collector road through the PFZ, including through an identified SNA. The ecological
aspects of this issue are addressed in Section 8. This was raised in a number of
submissions and evidence presented at the hearing, particularly in the legal submissions on
behalf of QEII and Forest & Bird, who made it clear that any roading provision should be
within appropriate limits.
11.19 Mr Portland of PDL stated that presently the plans provide very early options for enabling
access through the PFZ. Given the north / south alignment against the east / west waterway
alignment it is unsurprising that the primary collector road crosses through a SNA. Mr
Portland also considered that there needs to be a pathway through enabling the
development of the PFZ while ensuring that the SNAs were not compromised. In addition,
we heard from Messrs Anderson and Whittaker, and also Ms White, as to the importance of
the collector road for the PFZ to be developed so as to provide for a well-functioning (and
well-connected) urban environment. We accept the evidence that the primary collector road
is important for the development of the PFZ (and for providing outcomes to give effect to the
NPS-UD) but that development must occur within appropriate limits (which we consider it can
achieve). We have therefore, specifically referenced it within Chapter 8 of PC18 as set out in
Section 8.
11.20 As set out in Section 8 we consider that the identification of the location of the primary
collector road through the PFZ (and any other pedestrian or cycle trails or roads) traversing
71
through the SNA, BORA or wetlands or related buffer land or ecological enhancement areas
as an important issue that requires specific policy recognition. .
11.21 Forest and Bird 144 (and QEII 145) were concerned about the directive nature of the objectives
and policies in the Transport Chapter, which may not reconcile with the Ecosystem and
Indigenous Biodiversity policies (and the requirement for new roads to be consistent with the
Plimmerton Farm Precinct Plan (we address that below)). They sought the clarification
across a number of provisions (including in the Transport Chapter policy TRPFZ-P2 to make it
clear that provision of development was compatible with Chapter 7.
11.22 We accept the evidence of Messrs Cumming and Anderson that this is implicit (and how
planning documents are read). All relevant provisions have to be complied with and applied
in accordance with their wording. We are confident that the wording is clear and that, when
passing through SNAs, policy ECOPFZ-P8 and ECOPFZ-P5 would apply (as we have
discussed in Section 8).
Connections between Precincts and the Wider Area
Wider connections
11.23 Mr Morrison raised concerns about extra traffic through Paremata and provided background
as to commitments from Transit in 1998 about the clearway being an interim and reversible
measure. As mentioned during the hearing we have no control over how Waka Kotahi (or
PCC, should it become the road controlling authority) govern or manage the actual roading
network. We do have the ability to consider the potential effects of PC 18 on the roading
network and to recommend planning provisions we consider appropriate.
11.24 Ms Burgess also highlighted existing traffic safety issues through Plimmerton, especially
traffic cutting through Airlie Road which again is an issue for PCC in managing the City's
roading network. Ms Burgess was also concerned that more housing will put pressure on the
roads and result in a potential increase in traffic through Plimmerton. Plimmerton School
Board of Trustees also identified existing traffic safety issues with limited access to the
school (with only one road in and out).
11.25 Submissions and evidence were received relating to connectivity with Plimmerton Station
and road connections between PFZ and the wider roading network as well as internal
connections between the precincts. Messrs Cumming and Anderson's right of reply 146
concluded that an active transport connection across St Andrews Road could be better
provided for and determined that this should be incorporated into an integrated transport
144
145
146
At [56].
72
assessment required by resource consent processes. It is our view that, in addition to this,
the Strategic Objectives and Policies (Section 4) will ensure, in conjunction with policies
TRPFZ‐P2 and SUBPFZ‐P3, that provision for such connections are clearly planned for (in
particular in relation to timing), and the location of crossing of St Andrew's Road confirmed at
the appropriate time.
11.26 Safe connections for pedestrian and cyclists to Plimmerton Station and Plimmerton School
were a key concern; as highlighted by Plimmerton School, which is likely to accommodate a
number of students from the PFZ for several years (Section 16). We accept (and adopt the s
32 AA evaluation in the reply of Messrs Cumming and Anderson 147) the change to TRPFZ-P2
to ensure the Precinct Plan, and the provisions above, provide safe active transport
connections across St Andrew's Road to the station and school.
11.27 We also consider that policy TRPFZ-P2 will provide the safe and efficient integration of traffic
from PFZ into and through the surrounding road network. While there will be a change in
traffic patterns the expert evidence which we received (and accept) was that this could be
appropriately accommodated.
Internal connections
11.28 A number of submitters 148 oppose the proposed internal road layout which enables vehicle
connections between the different precincts. In their submissions such connections should
not be provided to enable a more defined neighbourhood scale and encourage alternative
transport modes to the private vehicle.
11.29 We agree with Ms White 149 as to the importance of connections, including roading
connections, to ensure well-functioning (and well-connected) urban environment (as we
require through the strategic policies and also policy TRPFZ-P2). A series of isolated
communities will not achieve the integration and urban outcomes sought by so many
submitters. 150 As explained above we have accepted that PC18 needs to place a greater
emphasis on active transport and have recommended changes to provide that. But we do
not consider that it is efficient and effective, nor the most appropriate way to achieve the
objectives to limit internal connections in the manner sought.
Road Typology
11.30 One further transport matter discussed during the evidence of Ms Cawthorn and raised by
several other submitters was the proposed road typologies within the PFZ.
147
See the table and paragraphs following at page 10.
148
149
S 42A report, Appendix 6 at [60]-[64].
150
S 42A report, Appendix 6 at [58]-[59].
73
11.31 The s 42A report notes 151 that the PC18 provisions seek to provide for all modes of transport
through a range of road typologies (as attached to the Precinct Plan) and an off-road
pedestrian and cycle network. During the hearing there was some consideration of the
typology of roads that would be suitable given the steep nature of much of the site, to limit
earthworks and also to provide for active transport.
11.32 Ms Cawthorn helpfully directed us to recent street network guidelines that have been
developed by Auckland Council as an example of best practice in designing street networks
for a range of transport modes (including active transport). In their reply Messrs Cumming
and Anderson (relying on Mr Whittaker) noted that the typologies proposed were similar to
those being advanced by Ms Cawthorn and warned us that curbless roads may be
impracticable on steep terrain.
11.33 Irrespective, we agree with Messrs Cumming and Anderson in their right of reply, 152 that the
transport provisions would benefit from increased flexibility enabling transport solutions
beyond the road typologies specifically listed. That goes some way towards the relief sought
by Ms Cawthorn and will enable future consenting processes, when actual designs and
details are known, to consider the appropriate typology in line with the PC18 framework. We
therefore accept (and adopt the s 32AA evaluation of Messrs Cumming and Anderson in
their right of reply) the recommended changes to TRPFZ-P2. We also accept the
recommended change to TRPFZ-S11.
12. SUBDIVISION
Background
12.1 PC18 includes a chapter dedicated to subdivision (Chapter 4). Few submissions 153 related
to the specific subdivision provisions proposed and no evidence was received at the hearing
relating to these. The most directly relevant was from Robyn Smith. Submitter attention was
instead more focused on numerous infrastructure, earthworks, storm water, and SNA /
BORA / biodiversity / ecology matters that would be the subject of determination at the time
of subdivision.
12.2 Ms Smith provided extensive comments (supported by the evidence of Mr Warburton) in

relation to the policies, rules, information requirements and land management plans in the
Subdivision Chapter.
12.3 In the s 42A report, Messrs Cumming and Anderson recommended only minor changes to
the notified subdivision chapter and the definitions chapter. The changes proposed were in
151
At [335].
152
At [60].
153
See the s 42A report at [551] and [554]-[557].
74
our view focused towards clarification of what the notified provisions sought rather than any
change in policy direction.
12.4 By the time of the Council reply, further refinements had been proposed by Messrs Cumming
and Anderson, also of no substantive impact. Changes were made to strengthen the
linkages between subdivision and the outcomes sought in relation to biodiversity and
ecology, wetlands, transportation and other infrastructure.
12.5 The exception to this was the proposed introduction, at SUBPFZ-P5, of a zone-wide
requirement tied to the first application for subdivision within the zone, that would require
confirmation of numerous matters of uncertainty discussed through the hearing. As set out in
Section 4 in our draft report we accepted this in part but shifted it to the Strategic Outcomes
Chapter. Our final recommendation, reflecting the legal comments received, moves towards
the use of this policy, and amendments to policy SUBPFZ-P2, to deliver the Strategic
Objectives and Policies as appropriate through the Subdivision Chapter and its rule (and
information) framework.
Key issues
12.6 We are satisfied that there were no key issues of contention or dispute at the hearing that
related to the subdivision provisions. Concerns regarding integration with transport and
infrastructure, storm water, biodiversity and ecology outcomes have been addressed by way
of clarifications and linkages to those chapters within the zone provisions. As mentioned, Ms
Smith (supported by the evidence of Mr Warburton) raised a number of concerns. We
consider that the provisions, when read with the other Chapters and the changes we have
made to PC18, provides protection for Taupō Swamp and will buffer downstream effects.
12.7 A key method proposed in the notified text was the concept of Land Management Plans
(“LMPs”). These would be triggered by any subdivision of land that includes an SNA or
BORA, and would require specific management and mitigation strategies to respond to the
land's environmental sensitivities. This method was broadly supported by the submitters,
although a number of additional matters were recommended to be included and Ms Smith
and Mr Warburton made a number of comments and recommendations in relation to the
LMPs. Messrs Cumming and Anderson generally accepted the additions, and in the Council
reply version the LMP method had evolved into what is now termed an Ecosystems and
Indigenous Biodiversity Management Plan (“EIBMP”). We agree that this expanded method
will most appropriately respond to the planning framework and the potential effects of
concern to the submitters.
12.8 The related concern of submitters was whether or not linking the LMP / EIBMP to individual
subdivisions might not achieve integrated management across the zone as a result of
75
fragmented and not necessarily consistent consent requirements. We agree with this
concern and have addressed it through the Strategic Objectives and Policies and changes
we have now made to the Subdivision Chapter to ensure that integrated management
occurs.
12.9 Finally, Forest & Bird and QEII raised issues over fragmentation of SNAs and BORA. We
agree and have addressed this by including minimising fragmentation within SUBPFZ-P2 and
SUBPFZ-P5. The reason for this change is to reflect the importance of these areas, as set out
in Sections 4 and 8. The difficulty that small lot sizes makes to efficient and effective
ongoing management for environmental protection means that we consider these
amendments are justified against s32AA.
Overall evaluation
12.10 Having considered the submissions, written evidence, material presented at the hearing, and
the Council's reply version including associated reasoning and rationale, we are persuaded
to accept the reply version for subdivision except as we have modified above and as set out
in Section 4.
12.11 Pursuant to clause 16 of the First Schedule of the Act, we have made minor and
inconsequential modifications and corrections based on the changes we have made to the
overall zone provisions. These are for consistency and to ensure correct cross-references
are made. We have also made more explicit reference in policy SUBPFZ-P3 to the transport
outcomes sought relating to the key collector road through the zone, and the promotion of
active modes of transport.
12.12 On the basis of our evaluations above we are satisfied that the modified Council reply
version of the provisions attached to this report as Appendix 1 are the most appropriate
provisions for the Precincts. For completeness, those submissions that:
(a) supported the Subdivision provisions including on the basis of modifications being
made are accepted in part to the extent that the Council reply version was based on
accepting various aspects of the submissions and our own recommendations making
further refinements;
(b) sought stronger linkages to be made between subdivision and the transport,
infrastructure, storm water, ecology, and biodiversity-related outcomes sought for the
zone are accepted in part to the extent that our recommended text provides clearer,
and in our view, stronger linkages;
76
(c) sought a more strategic focus to the Land Management Plan method applying to the
whole zone are accepted to the extent that we recommend the Strategic Objectives
and Policies and linked them to the Subdivision Chapter; and
(d) sought outcomes fundamentally contrary to what we have identified as most

appropriate, insofar as it relates to land subdivision, are rejected.
12.13 In light of the above, we have accepted and adopted the s 32 and s 32AA assessments by
Messrs Cumming and Anderson. The refinements we have proposed, excluding the
changes made to the Strategic Objectives and Policies (Section 4), are in our view not of a
scale or significance that would warrant any further evaluation under s 32AA of the RMA.
13. PRECINCTS / URBAN DESIGN
Background
13.1 As notified PC18 was based on four spatially defined Precincts; A to D. Each was supported
by its own set of activity and built form requirements, not dissimilar to what is typically seen
within a land use zone framework of objectives, policies, activity classifications, development
control rules, and assessment considerations.
(a) Precinct A was intended to be a predominantly medium-density residential

environment, including enablement for a comprehensive retirement village. This
density was justified on the basis of the land being less visually exposed than the upper
slopes, closer to Plimmerton and the Plimmerton Train Station, and the commercial
centre of Precinct D.
(b) Precinct B was intended to be a lower-to-medium density residential area at the north-
western end of the zone. Its flatter topography lent it a capacity to absorb more density
than on the more visually exposed slopes of the zone, but distance from Precinct D and
a future connection to the Plimmerton Train Station (at the southern end of the zone)
meant it could not support a density as high as in Precinct A.
(c) Precinct C was intended to be a lower-density and landscape-sensitive area of

residential development in the higher and sloped land of the Site. The provisions
proposed emphasised the importance of landscape assessment and sensitive design
so as to manage potential visual impact effects. This precinct was spatially the largest
and included an area of the proposed Kakaho Special Amenity Landscape.
(d) Precinct D was the smallest and was intended to accommodate a commercial centre.
This was located on an area of flat land adjacent to St Andrews Road in the southern
half of the Site. The proposed provisions sought to enable a collection of smaller-
77
scaled retail-type uses such as are typical in residential neighbourhoods. Alongside

these was enablement for a supermarket, and a trade-related outlet. We understood
that the customers attracted to these large-scaled stores would help make the
operating climate for the smaller-scaled retailers more hospitable. An indicative layout
for these uses was included as a Precinct Plan.
13.2 Under the heading "urban design" within the s 42A report, 154 submissions were evaluated
and a number of changes to the notified provisions were recommended.
13.3 Through the hearings process and PCC's right of reply, further changes have been identified
to us.
13.4 Of most significance is that in the reply-version Precinct D was proposed by Messrs
Cumming and Anderson to be deleted and subsumed into Precinct A. Provision for a
commercial centre within the enlarged Precinct A remained but would need to be addressed,
in the first instance, by way of resource consents. This was proposed in response to
acknowledgement through the hearing that the uncertainty of the extent of natural wetland
that exists in Precinct D as notified might render some or all of it un-developable. The
Council reply-version effectively allows the commercial centre to become mobile and shift in
response to the natural wetland question being resolved.
13.5 We have in summary accepted the deletion of Precinct D and agree that it is the only
practical means available to reconcile provision of a commercial centre and the potential for
Precinct D to contain potentially substantial natural wetlands. We accept the evidence of Mr
Heath during the hearing as to the importance of a commercial centre and the numerous
submissions that sought a supermarket and centre be provided. 155
13.6 But as set out earlier in our report, we have determined the location and extent of the
commercial centre is of strategic importance to how the balance of the Precinct and the
whole PFZ should be developed and have provided strategic direction for it through the
Strategic Objectives and Policies to link with policies PAPFZ‐P2 and PAPFZ‐P7.
Key Issues
13.7 At paragraph 318 of the s 42A report, the following issues were identified:
(a) Residential density;
(b) Providing for a Neighbourhood Centre in Precinct B;
(c) Provision for vehicles versus other transport modes;
154
At [317] – [389].
155
78
(d) Connection to Plimmerton Station;
(e) Road connections between precincts and the wider area;
(f) Location of Precinct D;
(g) Large Format Retail in Precinct D; and
(h) Private Outdoor Space provision.
Residential density
13.8 A number of submitters 156 considered that densities within the notified zone should be
increased. A smaller number sought less density. Messrs Cumming and Anderson's
position was to agree with the larger number of submitters and propose modifications within
Precincts A and B to enable greater densities. This remained the case by the conclusion of
the hearing.
13.9 We are satisfied that Precinct A, and to a lesser extent, Precinct B, can accommodate
relatively high densities and that PC18 should enable those. We agree with the submitters
that acknowledged the benefits of proximity to the planned commercial centre within the zone
and Plimmerton itself (including the station), and how that proximity justified higher densities
than would otherwise be acceptable.
13.10 The provisions put to us as part of Messrs Cumming and Anderson's reply propose what we
regard as the maximum densities that can be reasonably achieved while also respecting the
Site's constraints. We therefore accept Messrs Cumming and Anderson's recommendation
(and adopt their s 32AA assessment).
13.11 Those submissions that supported residential densities as notified are accepted in part;
those submissions that supported additional densities are accepted in part to the extent that
we are supportive of additional density but only in Precincts A and B; and those that sought
lesser densities are rejected.
Neighbourhood centre
13.12 A number of submitters sought identification of a second, smaller commercial centre within
Precinct B. PCC's position was that the Precinct B provisions enable consideration of non-
residential activities and that if there proves to be a viable market for these in the future there
is a pathway to bring them about. But identification on the Precinct Plan of a Precinct B
commercial centre was not supported by Messrs Cumming and Anderson (Ms White was
156
79
somewhat neutral on the matter). This position did not change by the conclusion of the
Hearing.
13.13 We are not persuaded that there is a need or demand for a commercial centre in Precinct B
and we are reluctant to identify one without sufficient evidence that whatever location we
elected was a commercially realistic and appropriate one. We also find that, in light of
changes made to Precinct D, that the principal commercial centre for the zone has become
something of a 'floating' entity within Precinct A. That is why through the strategic policies,
we require greater clarity as to location and connections and spatial integration across the
PFZ.
13.14 For the above reasons, the submissions seeking identification of a second commercial centre
within Precinct B are rejected.
Vehicles versus other transport modes
13.15 We refer to our analysis of the Transport Chapter in Section 11.
Connection to Plimmerton Station
Integration with the wider area
Precinct D
13.18 As we discussed in our evaluation in Section 8, a number of submitters opposed Precinct D

on the basis that its location potentially included a natural wetland, and that in fact all of
Precinct D might be a natural wetland. Following the recent NPS-FM and NES-FW this
would make provision of a commercial precinct centre (or any other such activity) at best
challenging, or if the majority or all of Precinct D is a natural wetland, unachievable.
13.19 Other submitters opposed provision for large-scale or 'big box' retailing on the basis that it
did not relate to the needs of the neighbourhood that would develop within the zone.
80
13.20 The s 42A report agreed that provision for larger-scaled retail should be limited to a
supermarket and a trade-supplier (such a Bunnings Warehouse or Mitre 10 Mega). We are
persuaded that these would be appropriate and suitably connected to the zone that they
would not be out of place. Our reasons for this are:
(a) A supermarket would benefit occupants within the PFZ and any additional users
attracted to it from outside the PFZ would increase the concentration of people within
the commercial centre and help sustain smaller-scaled or day-to-day retailers.
(b) A trade supplier would have the same benefits as a supermarket, including that
occupants of new dwellings are likely to visit a trade supplier during the end-period of
dwelling construction or personalisation, and for ongoing maintenance or changes to
dwellings.
(c) We received no expert evidence to suggest that a supermarket and trade supplier
within the zone would have a material adverse effect on land outside of the zone
(notably any existing commercial centre). Indeed, the expert evidence of Mr Heath was
that it would not.
13.21 But in terms of Precinct D, the s 42A position was to retain this as notified on the basis that
the case for natural wetlands was not proven and that there were sound locational reasons
for a commercial centre to occur in the identified Precinct D area.
13.22 By the close of the hearing Messrs Cumming and Anderson's position was to delete Precinct
D and amalgamate it with Precinct A, as discussed above. We accept this revision (and their
s 32AA evaluation) and agree that it is the most appropriate means of reconciling
enablement of a commercial centre with the potential for natural wetlands to exist in the
Precinct D location.
13.23 For the above reasons, the submissions that opposed big-box retailing are accepted in part,
to the extent that we agree that such provisions should be strictly limited to a supermarket
and a trade supplier. The submissions seeking deletion of Precinct D are also accepted in
part, to the extent that we have deleted Precinct D and spatial specification of a commercial
centre, but we have retained ability for a commercial centre to occur within Precinct A. If it is
established that no (or only a small extent of) natural wetlands exist on the notified Precinct
D area, then our recommended provisions would allow a commercial centre to establish
there.
Private Outdoor Space
13.24 Two submitters (Karla Beamsley and PDL) considered the requirements for outdoor living
space associated with residential dwellings were inadequate. Messrs Cumming and
81
Anderson's view was that the quality and utility of private outdoor space was more important
than a minimum area and by the close of the hearing refinements had been proposed to
improve how the standards operated. A key issue, as explained to us by Ms White in
response to our questions, was that many sites within the zone will be on sloping land and
this may mean that in some instances outdoor spaces will be either elevated by way of
decks, or otherwise limited such as to avoid large retaining walls holding up an artificially flat
garden space.
13.25 Having reviewed the submissions and the reply-version of PC18 outdoor living space
standards, the submissions are accepted in part to the extent that improvements to the
standards have been made in response to the submissions.
13.26 Another submitter, Welhom Developments Ltd, requested that the outdoor living space
requirement not apply to retirement villages on the basis that this model of living is premised
on communal recreation spaces. This was agreed with Messrs Cumming and Anderson and
that position had not changed by the close of the hearing. A related submission point was to
provide for a retirement village that complied with the key development standards to be non-
notified. This was also agreed. We have no reason not to accept the evidence of Messrs
Cumming and Anderson on these points, and for these reasons the submission is accepted.
Overall evaluation
13.27 Turning to the balance of the Precinct provisions that were not subjected to any specific
submission, through the Hearing we asked several questions of PCC's experts to test not
only the specific provisions and consent pathways proposed, but how they linked to the other
Chapters proposed for the PFZ. A particular interest was in how development within
individual lots would contribute, in an integrated manner, to the outcomes sought by
Chapters 5 (storm water), 8 (ecosystems and indigenous biodiversity) and 9 (earthworks) of
PC18.
13.28 We wish to acknowledge that between the notified version, the s 42A version, and the reply
version of the proposed PC18 text, PCC's experts showed a consistent motivation to identify
common ground solutions. While often technical or minor in nature at the level of the
individual provision, cumulatively, a significant and material change to the notified provisions
have eventuated. This pragmatism has assisted us greatly and it also narrowed the points of
disagreement significantly.
13.29 We have however identified a number of minor refinements that are consequential to our
findings or are otherwise in our view appropriate in terms of clause 16 of Schedule 1 of the
RMA to clarify or simplify the wording put to us.
82
13.30 On the basis of our evaluations above we are satisfied that the modified Council reply
version of the provisions attached to this report as Appendix 1 are the most appropriate
provisions for the Precincts. For completeness, those submissions that:
(a) supported the Precincts including on the basis of modifications being made are
accepted in part to the extent that the Council reply version was based on accepting
various aspects of the submissions and our own recommendations making further
refinements;
(b) sought deletion of Precinct D are accepted in part to the extent that we agree to
delete the Precinct but the provisions we recommend could still give rise to a
commercial centre in that location (if it is not a natural wetland) subject to the strategic
policies and precinct provisions;
(c) sought deletion of provision for large-scale or big-box retail within Precinct D are
accepted in part to the extent that we agree with the Council's s 42A planners that
one supermarket and one trade supplier would be appropriate and our recommended
deletion of Precinct D still allows for these as part of an enlarged Precinct A;
(d) sought refusal or deletion of the Precincts, or sought significant reductions in the extent
or type of development enabled within them are rejected.
13.31 In making the above recommendations, we have accepted and adopted the s 32 report and
the s 32AA evaluation by Messrs Cumming and Anderson. The changes we have
subsequently made to the reply version proposed by Messrs Cumming and Anderson are
minor in effect and having considered them under s 32AA, we are satisfied that no further or
additional evaluation is necessary because the conclusions they reached, and we have
adopted, still apply.
14. LANDSCAPE
The issue
14.1 Many submitters raised issues relating to the adverse effects on the landscape qualities of
the site's hills and Taupō Swamp catchment, others were concerned about the development
of the site in terms of the effects of clearing hillsides and cut and fill techniques and
development changing the landscape. Others such as the Te Awarua-o-Porirua Harbour and
Catchment Community Trust considered that the ecological values of the land should not be
subservient to landscape values in the Kakaho Special Amenity Landscape.
83
14.2 The submissions received on this issue are listed in the s 42A report 157 and a detailed
discussion is also set out. 158
14.3 In this section of our report we do not address visual effects of the development on
neighbouring residents. Those matters are addressed in Section 18.
Background
14.4 The s 32 report attached the Landscape and Visual Assessment (Appendix 10) describes the
landscape features of the site as being characterised by rolling pastureland, backdropped by
steep hill country and dominated by an open, expansive ridgeline. The hills of the PFZ form
an open expansive and unmodified backdrop to Plimmerton, Mana and Camborne. Section
5 of the report summarises the landscape character and visual effects of the development of
the PFZ.
14.5 The Landscape and Visual Assessment Report assesses the landscape character and visual
effects of the PFZ including the proposed Kakaho Special Amenity Landscape and states
that the development of the elevated slopes and open ridgeline has the potential to change
natural landform patterns and if not managed appropriately affected the visual coherence of
the landscape backdrop, its landscape character, and the identified values of the Kakaho
Special Amenity Landscape.
Submissions, presentations, and evidence
14.6 Beyond the evidence of Ms Williams there was little discussion during the hearing on
landscape matters (again visual effects are addressed in Section 18). There was also
discussion regarding the use of native or exotic vegetation across the PFZ and Mr Aitken
was concerned that PFZ would develop in a similar manner as other recent areas within
Porirua with no unpredictability in design and landscape treatments. As mentioned in section
2 Mr Warburton provided evidence on Policy 25 of the RPS and planning / s32 matters
related to landscape assessment.
14.7 We consider that the Strategic Objectives and Policies, Subdivision Chapter provisions, and
subsequent precinct plans, will ensure that landscape effects and mitigation measures
(including from roads) will be carefully considered along with the extent of cut and fill
proposed.
14.8 Ms Stanley raised the issue of the proposed Kakaho Special Amenity Landscape being
incompatible with ecologically sound catchment and water quality values. PC18 does not
seek to retain the existing pastoral landscape but replace it with development and an
157
At [390].
158
At [391]-[438].
84
indigenous vegetation pattern that reflects the landform in an ecologically sustainable

manner.
14.9 As noted by Messrs Cumming and Anderson in their reply 159 there was extensive evidence
seeking clarification of what Land Management Plans would achieve and how they would be
implemented. While PC18 envisaged Land Management Plans being prepared by qualified
landscape architects the purpose for these plans was identified as being to provide for the
protection and ongoing management of SNAs and BORAs. As discussed in Section 12, we
agree that the purpose of the Land Management Plans was not clear and accept the
approach taken by Messrs Cumming and Anderson in their reply that it be replaced by a
clearer EIBMP within the Subdivision Chapter. ). In terms of its inclusion we accept and
adopt the s 32AA assessment of Messrs Cumming and Anderson in their reply.
Findings and recommendation
14.10 Having carefully considered the s 32 report, the s 42A report, evidence and any other
relevant information, we consider that the effects of PC18 on the landscape and character
can be appropriately managed. There is no doubt that the implementation of the PFZ will
change the existing landscape however we consider that through protecting and enhancing
the vegetation in the gully systems, providing an open space and vegetation network through
the protection and enhancement of the SNAs and BORAs and enabling the establishment of
indigenous vegetation across the upper hills. PC18 will achieve a high quality built form that
will adequately mitigate effects of development in terms of landscape (and visual) effects.
The landscape and character are features of the site are linked with the issues we have
discussed relating to ecology, stormwater, earthworks and urban growth.
14.11 While we have generally accepted the evidence of Ms Williams and Messrs Cummings and
Anderson (and adopt their s 32AA assessment) in relation to the Landscape Chapter and the
provisions of PC18 we have made changes as required to ensure that PC18 will
appropriately recognise and landscape values.
14.12 In relation to the submission points on landscape matters:
are rejected,
159
At [113].
85
for the reasons explained above.
15. HOUSING SUPPLY AND DEMAND
The issue
15.1 While few submitters challenged the need for additional housing in Porirua some submitters
challenged the need for PC18, including raising concerns as to the justification for, and work
done by the council to 'prove' the justification of, PC18. Other submitters thought that rather
than greenfield subdivision intensification and infill of existing urban areas was a preferable
strategy.
15.2 Submissions received on this issue are listed in the s 42A report. 160 That report lists the
matters of agreement as being the need for housing, and showing the complexity of the
issues. The matters of disagreement also included the need for housing along with the need
for greenfield development and housing affordability.
Growth, price and demand background
15.3 The basis for PC18 is set out in the s 32 report which states "population projections
undertaken to inform the Porirua Growth Strategy 2048 show that the city will not have
enough housing [for Porirua residents in] 3 years' time." 161 The s 32 report identified the
resource management issue to be addressed by PC18 as, "to provide housing capacity and
variety that meets the needs of existing and future Porirua city residents." 162 The s 32 report
considered that the existing operative District Plan provisions were inadequate to meet the
statutory obligations. 163
15.4 The s 32 report attaches reports by NZIER and Property Economics. 164 The NZIER report
(July 2019) found that PC18 is likely to deliver major benefits for residents in terms of quality
of accommodation and amenity. 165 The NZIER report stated that the Porirua property market
has been a strong performer over the last few years noting: 166
The average values rose by 6.8% in the 12 months to June 2019 (national figure was
2.0%), and they now stand at $598,270. Further, since 2015 the value of houses has
risen by 56%.
160
At [298].
161
162
163
164
For completeness it also includes a medium Density Residential Development Feasibility Assessment (August 2019) and an
Addendum to that dated December 2019.
165
S 32 report, Appendix 1, NZIER report, Main Findings.
166
S 32 report, Appendix 1, NZIER report, pages 2-3.
86
The more affordable parts of Porirua have shown the largest gains in property values.
For example, Ascot Park, Waitangirua, Cannons Creek, and Ranui all have values
below $500,000 and all have seen double-digit increases over the last year. …
Porirua is a 'gainer' in terms of movers within wider Wellington who are relocating from
one part of the region (e.g. Wellington) to another (e.g. Porirua). … .
Berl (2018) supports growth prospects with strong population forecast until 2048. They
suggest between 5,800 and 10,000 new homes will be required in the Porirua City
District over the next 30 years.
15.5 The Property Economics report concluded that along with housing development in Eastern
Porirua, Plimmerton Farm will broaden the housing typologies and residential price points
available in the Porirua market. 167 In relation to growth the report comments: 168
There are a variety of population growth scenarios for the District being projected at the
moment. Suffice to say they are simply that – projections, and do not represent a
guaranteed growth profile for the District. Projections constantly change given the
dynamic nature of the economic variables that drive the market, however a consistent
theme among all the projection series is that Porirua is anticipated to grow. It is the
rate of growth is (sic) where variances occur.
15.6 An important document is the Wellington regional Housing and Business Development
Capacity Assessment dated 8 November 2019 ("HBA"). This document was prepared jointly
by all territorial authorities within the Wellington Regional (with each council having its own
chapter). It was prepared in accordance with the National Policy statement for Urban
Development Capacity 2016 (as set out above now replaced by the NPS-UD). The HBA
chapter for Porirua City Council states that:
(a) median sale prices grew by 50% over the 4-year period between mid-2014 to
September 2018; 169
(b) since September 2018 to the date of the report median sale prices for the eastern ward
have grown at the rate of 61%, 42% in the Western ward and 38% in the Northern
Ward; 170
(c) average rents across Porirua increased by 23% between 2015 and 2018; 171
167
S 32 report, Appendix 2, Property Economics report, page 2.
168
S 32 report, Appendix 2, Property Economics report, page 1.
169
Porirua City HBA, section 4.2.1.
170
171
87
(d) MBIE's Housing Affordability measure ("HAM") was 84% in March 2018 (meaning that
84% of first home buyer households in Porirua has insufficient income left to meet
other expenses after meeting their mortgage payments); 172
(e) the HAM for renters in Porirua was 65% in March 2018; 173 and
(f) there has been no new land zoned for residential purposes in Porirua City for 15
years. 174
15.7 In relation to housing sufficiency the HBA for Porirua City concluded that the city did not meet
the NPS-UDC requirements under all growth scenarios. The report comments that
"identifying and enabling an adequate supply of greenfield land in the medium and long term
will address this issue." 175
Planning background
15.8 The planning background 176 for subdivision of Plimmerton Farm starts in 2005 with the
Porirua Suburban Character Study. This responded to community concerns about the
impact of more intensive residential development on amenity and character values in
suburban areas.
15.9 The Porirua Development Framework 2009 was prepared to influence how and where
Porirua will physically develop over time. The framework identified parts of Plimmerton Farm
for potential urban growth and long-term urban growth. It also identified the site as a
'strategic study area'. Constraints and limitations of development north of Camborne were
identified as needing further investigation, which lead to the Porirua Northern Growth Area
Structure Plan 2014. The structure plan identified the potential for various types of
residential development on Plimmerton Farm (and surrounding areas) and: 177
"specifically envisages the following for the Plimmerton Farm site
• A proposed “New Village Area” on the site, which will include small centre shops
around a ‘public open space' and school site(s);
• The ‘Camborne North Development Area' which is traditional residential development

in the same theme as existing residential development to the south of the Plimmerton
Farm site;
172
173
174
175
Porirua City HBA, section 9.
176
Set out in detail at s 32 report at [116]-[135].
177
88
• ‘Rural Residential Areas' which allow for larger lots on steeper sites, bush clad sites
and areas of where development occurrence will have significant visual impact;
• ‘Open Space Areas' which will generally be the areas of steeper gully / watercourses
and low-lying flood plain and wetland areas; and,
• Some limited area of ‘Rural Deferred Development Area' with steeper terrain and
vegetation or visual protection zones where protection would be desirable."
15.10 In March 2019 the Porirua Growth Strategy was published. The s 32 report comments:
(131) … The strategy provides some context around the growth that Porirua City has
recently experienced and is forecast to experience over the next 30 years (with
projections of between 10,00-12,000 more people living in Porirua over the next 25
years for medium growth projections, and just under 30,000 more people under the
high growth projections).
(132) The Growth Strategy also considered the NPS-UDC and quantifies that currently
the City only has enough appropriately zoned land to accommodate the next three
years of growth. There is not enough supply beyond that. Most of the forecast growth is
anticipated to occur in the 3 - 1- year time horizon, triggered by the Transmission Gully
Motorway opening, the new District Plan becoming operative, and Porirua east
regeneration commencing.
(133) In order to provide for the forecast growth, the Growth Strategy presents a spatial
framework of where it expects growth to occur, and what type of growth is anticipated
in those locations. … .
15.11 Under the strategy Plimmerton Farm is identified within the northern growth area as providing
2,000 new household units from the year 2022.
15.12 The s 32 report concludes on the statutory and strategic basis for progressing PC18 as
follows:
… Plimmerton Farm represents a suitable greenfield growth area for advancing ahead
of other urban growth areas, given the following:
• The NPS-UDC requires Porirua City Council to have sufficient land zoned for
residential and business purposes to cater for future population projections;
• Plimmerton Farm has been identified as a suitable greenfield growth area for Porirua
in the Growth Strategy 2048 (primarily for residential land use, with some employment
and some rural residential land use) and its predecessor growth strategy documents;
89
• Plimmerton Farm is also identified in the Porirua Northern Growth Area Structure Plan
2014 as suitable for greenfield growth;
• Because of the growth strategy and structure plan, using Plimmerton Farm for urban
purposes gives effect to Policies 55 and 56 of the RPS;
NPS-UD
15.13 In July 2020 the Minister for the Environment published the NPS-UD. In opening legal
submissions counsel for PCC stated (footnotes omitted):
30. At the time PC18 was prepared, the NPS-UD was not in force, and therefore PCC
was relying on work undertaken to give effect to the NPS-UDC. This included reliance
on a Housing and Business Assessment that was undertaken to fulfil the requirements
of the NPS-UDC. Analysis of how PC18 was intended to give effect to the NPS-UDC is
set out in the Section 32 Report at paragraphs [32] – [56].
31. The Section 32 Report prepared in support of PC18 also considered what was
then a discussion document regarding a draft of the NPS-UD that was released by the
Ministry for the Environment (Ministry) in August 2019.
32. Both the NPS-UDC and the NPS-UD direct local authorities to provide sufficient
development capacity to accommodate projected demand in the short, medium and
long term. It is submitted that the urban development enabled by PC18 will assist it in
giving effect to the NPSUD by appropriately responding to the urban growth and
housing capacity issues faced by the City. Messrs Cumming and Anderson discuss the
relationship between PC18 and the NPS-UD at paragraphs [301]-[311] of the Section
42A report. Considering the form of development envisaged by PC18, there is
submitted to be clear justification for the plan change and alignment with the NPS-UD.
15.14 The S 42A report 178 and Footnote 16 of the opening legal submissions contained a list of
relevant objectives and policies in the NPS-UD. For brevity we do not list out all those
provisions, but we have considered them all, and the NPS-UD as a whole. We agree with
that list and also with the position advanced by counsel that PC18 will assist the PCC in
giving effect to the NPS-UD.
15.15 Provisions and discussion on the NPS-UD occur in other sections of our report. Without
limiting our consideration of all the relevant provisions of the NPS-UD we briefly wish to
comment on a few provisions:
178
At 304.
90
(a) The concept of well-functioning urban environments (Objective 1 and Policy 1) which
includes:
(i) Providing a variety of homes (in terms of type, price, location and for different
households). We consider that the various densities, heights, housing typologies
and locations of precincts provided in PC18 give effect to these matters.
(ii) Enabling Maori to express their cultural conditions and norms. This integrates
with Policy 9 requiring us to take into account the values and aspirations of hapū
and iwi for urban development. We have done so. As set out in Section 6, and in
this section, Ngāti Toa are in support of PC18 (within environmental limits). As
explained in Section 6, and further below, lack of housing is a significant issue for
Ngāti Toa. They want their whanau to be able to live within their rohe and see
PC18, alongside other housing developments within the district, as helping to
achieve this.
(iii) Having a variety of sites that are suitable for different business sectors. There is
the provision for small neighbourhood centres. Precinct D took up a significant
amount of evidence. As explained in Section 13, we accept the urban design
and retail evidence on behalf of PCC as to the importance of commercial hub for
a subdivision of this scale. But, as set out in Sections 4, 8 and 13, we also
accept that if parts, or all, of Precinct D are found to be natural inland wetlands
within the definition of the NPS-FM then consent for activities may be very difficult
if not impossible to obtain under the NES-FW. As explained in Sections 4, 8 and
13, due to the lack of robust investigations within Precinct D we could not
conclude whether all or part of it was a natural inland wetland. In their right of
reply Messrs Cumming and Anderson proposed removing Precinct D and folding
its provisions within a larger Precinct A. In Section 13 we accepted that outcome
and consider that enables a variety of sites suitable for different business sectors
as required by Policy 1.
(b) Providing at least sufficient development capacity to meet expected demand for
housing and business land over the short term, medium term, and long term (Policy 2).
For the reasons set out in this section we consider that PC18 gives effect to this policy.
(c) Policy 6 (and Objective 4) requires that we have particular regard to a number of
matters which includes that planned built urban form may involve significant changes to
an area that may detract from the amenity values appreciated by some people and
those changes are not, of themselves, an adverse effect. We address the concept of
change in response to some of the other matters (including amenity effects) in
Section 18.
91
(b) Policy 8 requires our recommendation to "be responsive to plan changes that would
add significantly to development capacity and contribute to well-functioning urban
environments …". PC18 will add significant development capacity to the district and
we consider will contribute to a well-functioning urban environment.
Regional Policy Statement
15.16 We note that GWRC's submission was that PC18 was consistent with the objectives and
policies in Chapter 3.9 of the RPS (Regional Form, design and function) in that the "RPS
supports urban development consistent with the council's growth strategies …". We agree.
Other statutory requirements
15.17 For completeness we briefly note that s 31(1)(aa) of the RMA sets out as a function of PCC
"the establishment, implementation, and review of objectives, policies and methods to ensure
that there is sufficient development capacity in respect of housing and business land to meet
the expected demands of the district".
S 42A Report
15.18 The s 42A report commented
308. As detailed in PCC Housing development Summary attached as Appendix 2, the

number of new dwellings required in Porirua City by 2048 is currently modelled as
being approximately 10,500 (a figure which has been used to inform the Council's
Long-term Plan work). Nearly 2,000 of those houses are required by the end of 2023.
309. When considering land availability, approximately 5,000 of the required dwellings
over the period to 2048 are forecast to become located in existing urban areas (through
infill development or comprehensive brownfield development), with the balance being
needed in greenfield sites.
Submissions and discussion
15.19 As already explained Te Rūnanga understand the need for future housing development
within the Porirua region given its rapidly expanding population (but within cultural and
environmental limits). In her presentation to us Ms Solomon commented on the "imperative"
that mana whenua want (and can afford) to come home.
92
15.20 Housing availability is, Ms Solomon stressed, a significant issue within Porirua. 179 Further,
the issue needs to be addressed now and through a diversity of housing options of which
PC18 forms a part.
15.21 Ms Solomon explained the challenges facing Ngāti Toa, with the cost of housing and rent
meaning that large numbers of people living in a single dwelling is common. 180 We note that
Porirua has the highest percentage of people living in homes with 5 or more people in the
country. 181 She also explained the considerable work that Ngāti Toa is doing to help address
this issue within its rohe.
15.22 In relation to PC18, Ms Solomon emphasised that while members of Ngāti Toa may, or may
not live there at the very least provision of extra housing will have indirect benefits such as
freeing up (or at least reducing pressures on) housing elsewhere. Further, while no plans
presently exist, it may be that in the future Ngāti Toa could be involved in some way in the
Plimmerton Farm development as it is with numerous other housing initiatives across its
rohe.
15.23 Some submitters 182 questioned the need for PC18 stating that the argument that Porirua
desperately needs housing is not supported by the evidence. Further they 183 submitted a
growth rate of -0.2-0.9% per annum hardly justifies such a large subdivision. In 2019
Porirua's population was 57,500 and the Porirua Growth Strategy 184 predicts between 10,000
(medium growth) additional people over the next 25 years and 30,000 (high growth)
additional people over the next 30 years. The high growth projection is with an annual
average growth rate of 1.7%.
15.24 Further, as Mr Gillies made clear, Plimmerton Farm is a medium to longer term development
likely to be spread over 15 plus years. 185 That timeframe corresponds with that contained in
the Porirua Growth Strategy. 186 It shows how PC18 would enable potential housing
development over an extended period. We accept that PC18 appropriately responds to
forecast growth projections (recognising they are projections only).
15.25 Mr Cody, 187 while he accepted Precinct A and sought that PC18 in relation to it be adopted,
raised in his submission that the s 32 report provided no substantive evaluation of options
and relative efficiency (other than a preliminary report on feasibility of medium density
179
With those who claim otherwise invited to spend a week in her world.
180
Ms Solomon spoke of upwards of 13 people to a single dwelling.
181
Porirua Growth strategy 2048, page 9. Noting that the largest growth is expected to be for couples without dependents and 1-person
households (page 12).
182
Including Mr Daly and Forest & Bird Youth.
183
Including Mr Widdowson.
184
At pages 10 and 11.
185
Evidence of Mr Gillies at [7]. We also discussed timeframes directly with Mr Gillies and Mr Portland during the hearing.
186
At page 24.
187
Mr Cody also raised that PCC had failed to identify a compelling public interest that justifies removing PC18 from the normal city
planning process. We have no control over the process, that was decided on by the Minister. However, ultimately Mr Cody told us that
93
housing). During the hearing Mr Cody criticised PCC for not having population and housing
experts available to answer questions and in his opinion placing the onus on submitters to
engage their own experts (which none did). He gave as an example the lack of mention by
PCC of population projections suggesting that all growth in the region in the next 20 years
will occur in the over 65 cohort. Therefore, Mr Cody considered that the key underpinning of
PC18 was missing.
15.26 In response to questions 188 from Mr Cody, Messrs Cumming and Anderson set out the
documents on which various models were based, as well as referring to the HBA. In
addition, they provided up-to-date house sale and rental data. The data provided (along with
that in the s 32 report) shows that PCC has been through a dramatic rise in house and rental
property prices over many years but especially in the last 3 years. Annual percentage
changes in median house value over the last year have increased between 4.3%
(Plimmerton) and 19.5% (Takapuwahia). The median house value in 2020 from the table
provided by Messrs Cumming and Anderson was $758,550.
15.27 We accept PCC's approach to not call expert evidence on growth and the drivers for PCC
given there was no expert challenge to it. We also accept the basis of PC18 as being
sufficiently robust to justify PC18 being advanced and adopted. Having reviewed the s 32
report and all of the growth / development documents listed above, and the response to
questions, we are satisfied that there is a robust justification for PC18.
15.28 While we note that the HBA (prepared under the old NPS-UDC) only identified failure to meet
the requirements under some, not all, growth scenarios, we consider that there is a clear
need for PC18 and for greenfield development within the district and we accept the s 42 A
report that there is insufficient supply to meet demand in the medium and long term. 189 In
particular, the NPS-UD requires that be at least sufficient development capacity. The
evidence is clear that Porirua City has seen a significant increase in house and rental prices.
PC18 is one part in the effort to respond to housing issues (see the timeframe how all the
components are planned to fit in the Porirua Growth Strategy 190) and we consider that PC18
is required in order to give effect to the NPS-UD and to ensure that there is sufficient
development capacity for the district. This to us is a critical issue. While arguments can be
had over what growth rate may or may not occur the clear evidence is that housing / rental
affordability in Porirua is getting significantly worse each year.
the value of the process had been very good causing what he termed an "outbreak of democracy" such that should we decline PC18,
which he sought us to do, the effort and time would not have been wasted.
188
Reply to Questions Asked of Andrew Cumming and /or Thomas Anderson on behalf of PCC, dated 9 October 2020.
189
At [307]
190
At page 24.
94
15.29 Other submitters questioned the need for greenfield development (as opposed to infill or
intensification of existing residential areas). 191 For example, Dr Lensen and Forest & Bird
Youth considered there are better alternatives than allowing this greenfield development
including intensification around transport hubs, co-housing and papakāinga, tiny homes and
medium / high density in the outer suburbs of Porirua. Many submitters, including Mr
Gregory, see PC18 as promoting urban sprawl (as opposed to a compact city by building up
and not out) and Mr Marriage considered that as Wellington City is the main employment
hub, Plimmerton Farm is in the wrong direction for housing. A number of submitters,
including Generation Zero, seek use of brownfield development.
15.30 As already explained, and well-illustrated in the Porirua Growth Strategy, 192 PC18 is just one
piece of the puzzle to address housing issues. Further, some submitters did not support
intensification (at least outside of the city centre) and concerns raised in relation to proposed
intensification for Wellington City were voiced. While infill and brownfield development is
being explored, as explained in the s 42A report, 193 that will provide about half of the required
housing. We accept that greenfield development is also needed and forms an important
option. We are satisfied that PC18 is required, as part of a wide and robust package
(including intensification) being promoted by PCC, to respond to the NPS-UD and the
housing issue within Porirua.
15.31 While some submitters sought greater intensification within PC18, others, such as Ms
Beamsley, considered 194 that while recognising the need for more housing, medium density
did not fit with the area or with the housing demands for the area and was better suited for
other areas. Again, PC18 has a range of housing typologies and proposed densities. From
the information provided, and evidence, we are satisfied that provision for medium density
within Precincts A and B is appropriate (as explained in Section 13).
15.32 Other submitters, including Ms Shaw, sought that PCC defer PC18 until it could be
considered in relation to the Wellington growth framework. In our view the evidence is clear,
and the direction in the NPS-UD is strong, that PCC cannot wait any longer. This is a critical
resource management issue for the district and, while PC18 is just one of many options that
all must be progressed, it is an important component.
15.33 Finally, some submitters, such as Regional Public Health, sought inclusionary zoning (at
least for an initial period to provide for affordable (but quality) housing. Ms Shaw considered
that the focus should be on affordable housing in the eastern Suburbs and Mr Gregory
considered that PC18 would do nothing to address affordable housing. During the pre-
191
Including Mr Gregory, Mr Marriage, Generation Zero, Dr Lensen, Forest & Bird Youth and Mr Daly
192
At page 24.
193
At [309].
194
Relying on the TPG report attached to the s 32 report.
95
hearing meetings there was discussion of inclusionary zoning to favour affordable housing. 195
As officers noted during the pre-hearing meeting Plimmerton Farm is:
"… just one component of the overall housing supply resource of the District, and that
the NPS-UD and the proposed District Plan both aim to provide more housing of
various types. Officers noted also that Kainga Ora Ngāti Toa are actively developing
new housing in the District, and that the proposed plan provides for papākāinga
housing opportunities."
15.34 We agree with the officer's comments. Plimmerton Farm is one of a number of options, all of
which in our view are required to enable Porirua to address its housing issues. Also,
Plimmerton Farm allows for various housing typologies and while it is not required to provide
affordable housing, we agree with Ms Solomon on behalf of Ngāti Toa that options remain,
for example for Ngāti Toa or others to potentially deliver that. Further, as Ms Solomon stated
and we agree, at the very least Plimmerton Farm will add to supply and people may shift
from other areas within Porirua to live there which will free up other housing.
Finding and recommendation
15.35 The need for more housing within Porirua was not widely disputed although the location and
type of that housing was more widely disputed. We find, for the reasons above, that there is
the need for additional housing, and PC18 as part of that mix, within Porirua. While this is
required to give effect to the NPS-UD and to achieve PCC's function under s 31(1)(aa) of the
RMA it is also required, in our view, to achieve the purpose of the RMA.
15.36 We therefore accept the resource management issue to be addressed by PC18 as "to
provide housing capacity and variety that meets the needs of existing and future Porirua city
residents." 196
15.37 We recommend to the Minister that PC18 has a sound basis and is justified to respond to the
resource management issue of providing housing capacity and variety. On that basis we
accept, and adopt, the evaluation and s 32 and 32AA assessments in the s 32 report, s 42A
report, rebuttal evidence of Messrs Cumming and Anderson and their hearing and right of
reply evidence and versions of PC18.
15.38 In relation to the submission points on the need for PC18:
195
Report of pre-hearing meetings, 28 September 2020, page 9.
196
96
are rejected,
16. INFRASTRUCTURE
The issue
16.1 Many submitters raised issues relating to the lack of capacity of existing infrastructure (both
physical and social). 197 These submitters sought that current infrastructure failings and
constraints be corrected before PC18 is advanced. The issue is whether PC18 can be
advanced, and if so how, without causing unsustainable effects, and overloading,
infrastructure services.
16.2 The submissions received on this issue are listed in the s 42A report. 198 That report lists the
matters of agreement as being the need for new infrastructure, protection of regionally
significant infrastructure and servicing of allotments. The matters of disagreement are the
capacity of existing infrastructure, alternative or self-contained infrastructure and servicing of
Precinct D.
16.3 As set out below we also address submissions under this heading relating to social
infrastructure.
Background
16.4 The Porirua Growth Strategy 2048 states: 199
An increase in our projected population, means that there will be more pressure on our
infrastructure network. This includes things we can see and use every day, like roads,
footpaths and parks. It also includes things that we often take for granted, like the water
we drink and the waste that's flushed from our homes.
It is vital that as Porirua changes, we ensure that our infrastructure is fit for purpose
and has the capacity and quality to support our growing communities and
environmental health. When planning for growth, we also need to consider social
infrastructure – like schools, outdoor spaces, health facilities and recreation facilities.
197
See the discussion at [495]-[534] of the s 42A report.
198
At [495].
199
At [34].
97
Across New Zealand many councils are struggling with the same issues faced by
Porirua City – maintenance of current service levels, renewal of ageing and at times
failing assets, future-proofing for anticipated growth while managing rates, and debt
impact. …
16.5 In relation to 3 waters the Porirua Growth Strategy succinctly concludes "our 3 waters
network is not currently fit for purpose to meet our projected growth needs and improve our
overall water quality." 200 That fits with the comment that the city does not have enough
housing supply to meet demand required under the former NPS-UDC from 3 - 30 years,
"mostly because our infrastructure is unable to service it in its current state." 201
16.6 The s 32 report attached an Infrastructure Report (Appendix 13) that evaluated the feasibility
of wastewater, water, electricity, gas and telecommunications to service the site.
16.7 The Infrastructure Report notes 202 that while upgrades to the Porirua WWTP mean that it will
have sufficient capacity to cater for PC18 the existing reticulation downstream of the site is in
poor condition and undersized (with "severe" infiltration of stormwater issues).
16.8 The Infrastructure Report briefly considered different options and favoured a network peak
flow option (equivalent to 12 hours of average dry weather flow) with preliminary designs (in
discussion with Wellington Water) confirming this could occur onsite (but noting there are
offsite options). The report recommends that PC18 require adequate wastewater services to
be provided at subdivision stage.
16.9 The Infrastructure Report states in relation to other physical infrastructure:
(a) That the water supply is available in the area to accommodate PC18. However, extra
local storage (about 5 - 6 megalitres) would be required and could be accommodated
in 1 or more reservoirs onsite. They would be fed from the existing GWRC bulk supply
main on SH1.
(b) That the existing 33KV and 11KV lines on the south east corner of the site be
undergrounded. There is an existing substation at the southern end of the site, but a
new substation would likely be required to the northern end of the site. Discussions
have occurred with Wellington Electricity. Overall no problem was seen with the
provision of electricity.
200
At page 34.
201
At page 13.
202
At page 8.
98
(c) There is an existing gas line (and easement) that runs across the bottom third of the
site. This would likely be realigned. During discussions with PowerCo the available
capacity has been confirmed and no problems are foreseen.
16.10 Overall the Infrastructure Report concludes:
Based on our assessment of the existing infrastructure, our investigations on-site, our
discussions with Council and other service providers, and our preliminary design, we
are satisfied that the development enabled by rezoning … can be adequately serviced
in terms of … wastewater, potable water, electricity, telecommunications, and, if
required, gas.
Submissions, presentations and evidence
16.11 As mentioned there we a number of submissions on infrastructure which before us included

social and physical infrastructure.
16.12 Starting with social infrastructure, we heard from Plimmerton School Board of Trustees, and
a number of other submitters 203 raised the issue that Plimmerton School is already at
capacity and is managing its student numbers very carefully. Mr Forrest (the principal) and
Ms Hardymills (trustee) spoke with great passion and candour about their school and the
challenges they are having in delivering for their community. They explained the challenges
the school has faced over the years with an expanding role and limited (and often poor
quality) facilities. While acknowledging that we cannot direct MOE to fund new resources (let
alone new schools) their exasperation in dealing with MOE was clear and their primary
outcome is that there needs to be a plan to accommodate new primary school students. We
have considerable sympathy for the position in which they find themselves.
16.13 Their preferred outcome was a new school within Plimmerton Farm. That outcome appears
to have been supported through the development of PC18 by PDL and PCC which identified
a 'potential' school location. A number of submitters supported a school location being
identified within Precinct B (or the PFZ generally). PCC and PDL have been having
discussions on a new school within Plimmerton Farms with MOE. However, MOE sought
removal of the identified 'potential' school area from PC18 (on the basis they designate
school sites) and commented that a new primary school would be likely but discussions will
continue. That removal was accepted by Messrs Cumming and Anderson and we accept
their reasons for that and reject those submissions relating to identifying a school location
within PC18.
203
Including Ms Slessor, Ms Beamsley, Mr and Mrs Weinstein, Ms Burgess, Mr Reader and Mr and Mrs Weinstein.
99
16.14 We encourage, should the Minister accept our recommendation, that he and his officials talk
with the Minister of Education about providing appropriate school facilities to accommodate
the additional population that will follow the development of Plimmerton Farm. While
ultimately a new school appears likely (and from the evidence we heard is required) for a
transitional period, which may be a number of years, additional students will attend
Plimmerton School. This creates pressure on the capacity of Plimmerton School and wider
social issues (which we recognise go beyond Plimmerton, and also wider than just
education). We consider that funding support by central Government for the outcomes it
seeks through the NPS-UD is, in our view, critical if the Government wishes to deliver well-
functioning urban environments for New Zealanders.
16.15 Other submitters 204 raised issues regarding existing pressure on park and ride facilities at the
Plimmerton train station. Associated with this a number of submitters 205 raised concerns as
to lack of capacity on existing peak time rail services. However, KiwiRail's submission
supported the general intent of PC18. In its further submission KiwiRail noted in relation to
the park and ride facilities, that while outside the scope of PC18, they are managed by
GWRC and any expansion is anticipated to be able to be provided.
16.16 Pressure on other facilities such as medical centres and recreation areas was also raised. 206
PC18 enables the establishment of a new medical (and other social) facilities within a
commercial area (now within Precinct A). As explained in the Porirua Growth Strategy: 207
As we grow, we need to consider the type of infrastructure that encourages community

wellbeing and quality of life. These are things like schools, libraries, playgrounds,
community centres and sports and recreation facilities.
16.17 The Porirua Growth Strategy recognises that significant investment is required both from
development contributions and also through rates and LTP. The implementation timeframe
recognises that trade-offs will be required. For social infrastructure within our power to
control, we consider that overall the services and infrastructure will be developed in tandem
with the development of Plimmerton Farm. As mentioned in Section 15, Plimmerton Farm is
just one part of the puzzle to address growth and housing needs for Porirua City. Facilities
across the city will be required and existing facilities, and their use, will change. We do not
see the demands on social infrastructure, or changes to it as being enough, as some
submitters sought, to decline PC18.
204
Including Ms Brown and Ms Chesterfield.
205
Including Ms Burgess, Susan Xuereb and Matthew Xuereb.
206
Including by Ms Burgess, Mr Widdowson and Mr Morrison.
207
Page 37.
100
Physical infrastructure
16.18 Many submissions commented generally on what they saw as the poor state of existing
infrastructure. For example, the Plimmerton Residents Association submitted that PC18
would add significantly the stress on ageing infrastructure that already struggles to cope.
Wastewater
16.19 A focus of many submissions was the poor state of the existing wastewater network (a
position shared by PCC in its Porirua Growth Strategy). Mr Morrison, in his submission and
presentation before us, clearly voiced the concerns of many in explaining the inability of the
system to cope with the additional strain that PC18 will cause (he had a particular concern on
effects within Paremata). He showed us photos of a manhole on Mana Esplanade
overflowing wastewater during heavy rain (and a later photo showing toilet paper remaining
on the footpath afterwards). In addition, he raised odour concerns and effects of leaks on the
harbour. He did not consider 208 that the proposed 12-hour storage would be enough (and
would fail to rectify his downstream concerns).
16.20 Mr Morrison's concerns were supported by Mr Shaw on behalf of the Paremata Residents
Association. While the association had submitted on a number of infrastructure issues,
Mr Shaw focused on wastewater in presenting to us and left us under no illusions as to the
issues being faced with wastewater in the district.
16.21 Ngāti Toa also raised concerns as to the capacity of the Porirua WWTP to cope with extra
development with any negative effects needing to be mitigated. In relation to mitigation Ngāti
Toa are supportive of a storage option for Plimmerton Farm as proposed in the Infrastructure
Report. While noting it was not directly relevant, Ngāti Toa also voiced its opposition to a
cross harbour wastewater pipeline.
16.22 In his evidence Mr Rose advised that Wellington Water is investigating

duplicating / upgrading a section of the wastewater main between the site and the city centre
as well as constructing a holding tank in the city centre (which has been sized to
accommodate future growth areas). His view remained that the proposed 12-hour storage
(plus the proposed and commenced works) would mean there was sufficient capacity in the
system) and that there were no obvious wastewater supply issues that would preclude PC18
(or require change).
16.23 While there are obviously issues with the existing wastewater network we accept Mr Rose's
evidence that the wastewater effects associated with the development at Plimmerton Farm
can be appropriately accommodated.
208
Along with other submitters such as Ms Beamsley.
101
Gas
16.24 PowerCo noted that upgrades would be required and sought changes to PC18, in particular
to protect the existing gas main on the site and the new infrastructure should be installed at
the same time as new development to avoid re-digging holes etc. The s 42A report accepted
the need to protect Regionally Significant Infrastructure on the site. We accept that for the
reasons set out in the s 42 report.
16.25 In a letter dated 8 October 2020, Powerco emphasised some matters that had not been
accepted (or incorporated) into PC18. In the 'post-rebuttal' version of PC18 Messrs
Cumming and Anderson recommended changes to exclude underground infrastructure from
the 1m from a boundary earthworks setback standards.
16.26 Having considered PowerCo's submission and letter we accept the approach taken by
Mr Cumming and Mrs Anderson 209 for the earthworks for the installation of infrastructure.
We also accept their approach of amending Policy SUBPFZ- P1 as opposed to the standards
amendments sought by Powerco. Powerco also submitted on road type plans. Mr Rose in
his evidence noted that the Code of Practice is being reviewed and considered the roading
cross sections provide a satisfactory solution. We have commented more generally on these
plans in Section 11.
Other matters
16.27 Fire and emergency submitted on amending PC18 to reflect the Code of Practice for
Firefighting. The s 42A report accepted that submission and we do too for the same
reasons. Wellington Electricity provided an extensive submission and at the hearing
Mr Hardy spoke to us about the network, upgrades and how it is best to do it once and do it
right for new developments. With the matters accepted by Messrs Cumming and Mr
Anderson, Mr Hardy was happy with the provisions of PC18. We agree with those matters
accepted by Mr Cumming and Mr Anderson as set out in the s 42A report.
16.28 Having carefully considered the s 32 report, submissions, the s 42A report, evidence, and
other relevant material we consider that the effects of PC18 on physical and social
infrastructure can be appropriately accommodated. There is no doubt that the additional
population caused by development of Plimmerton Farm will change the existing use of (and
demand on) infrastructure. For physical infrastructure, we accept the evidence of Mr Rose
that it can be appropriately accommodated. For social infrastructure we consider that given
the time periods involved (15 - 20 years) and that PC18 is just one piece of the wider housing
209
102
puzzle, we are satisfied that as growth occurs social infrastructure will be developed.
However, as PCC notes, as has always been the case, that will require significant investment
and involve compromises.
16.29 While infrastructure per se does not have its own chapter in PC18 we recommend that no
changes to the right of reply version are required for infrastructure beyond our recommended
changes. On that basis we accept, and adopt, the evaluation and s 32 and s 32AA
assessments in the s 32 report, s 42A report, rebuttal evidence of Messrs Cumming and
Anderson and their hearing and right of reply versions of PC18. In relation to the Strategic
Objectives and Policies our s 32AA assessment is contained in Section 4, but specific to
infrastructure we consider that integrated planning is required. Such an approach is effective
and efficient and gives effect to the NPS-UD.
16.30 In relation to the submission points on Infrastructure:
are rejected,
for reasons explained above.
17. COMPLIANCE AND MONITORING
17.1 Numerous submitters 210 raised issues and concerns with the compliance monitoring, or what
they saw as lack thereof, undertaken over the years by PCC and GWRC, especially in
relation to earthworks and sediment. This issue also arose during the pre-hearing
meetings. 211 A number of submitters had no confidence that even if PC18 required
protection from, or avoidance of, various effects that should consents be granted in the future
the conditions imposed would ever be monitored or enforced (and this included the SNAs
and BORAs which we have addressed above). Often that position lead to requesting that we
decline PC18 (especially when there is reliance on new techniques and approaches).
17.2 The s 42A report authors accepted 212 that achieving PC18's desired outcomes requires
robust monitoring of plan effectiveness and compliance with resource consent requirements.
Mr Cumming and Mr Anderson supported a monitoring plan involving Ngāti Toa and a
See S 42A report at [535]. This was also a topical issue before us at the hearing, in particular Ms Beamsley and Friends of Taupō
210
Swamp.
103
stakeholder engagement group but did not consider any changes were required to PC18 to
achieve that. 213 As stated in the officer's right of reply: 214
PCC's monitoring obligations are set out in s 35 of the Act. The Monitoring Chapter of
the Operative District Plan continues to apply to PFZ. In addition, we have been
advised that PCC is developing a monitoring strategy for the entire City. In our view the
monitoring strategy will provide the appropriate opportunity to detail the involvement of
Ngāti Toa and community stakeholders at plan monitoring level. At resource consent
level, specific monitoring requirements will be set out in resource consent conditions.
17.3 While we were provided with many stories we were not provided with any probative evidence
as to such failures by PCC or GWRC. Further, we have no control over PCC's (nor GWRC's)
compliance monitoring regime. We must proceed on the basis that PCC and GWRC will, as
they told us during the hearing, appropriately undertake compliance monitoring in compliance
with their statutory obligations. We also need to be mindful that we are setting a planning
framework, not the detailed consent conditions. But, as set out in Section 4, Strategic
Objectives and Policies and the subdivision provisions provide greater detail and focus on
these important matters.
17.4 Therefore, submissions on this issue are accepted in part in relation to the changes we
have made to PC18 through the Strategic Objectives and Policies and subdivision provisions
(Section 4) and subdivision information requirements (including monitoring).
18. OTHER MATTERS
18.1 The s 42A report sets out several 'other matters' on which people submitted. 215 This
included a range of issues listed as (a) to (l). We accept and adopt Messrs Cumming and
Anderson's responses on these matters and their s 32AA evaluation.
18.2 There are a few chapters of PC18 not otherwise addressed in our report. 216 We accept, and
adopt, the evaluation and s 32 and s 32AA assessments in the s 32 report, s 42A report,
rebuttal evidence of Messrs Cumming and Anderson and their hearing and right of reply
versions of PC18.
211
Report of pre-hearing meetings, 28 September 2020, pages 4-5.
212
213
S 42A report at [549] and [550].
214
Officer's right of reply at [154].
215
The list of submitters on other matters is at [551].
216
Introduction, Definitions, Natural Hazards, Noise, Renewable Energy and the city-wide provisions and consequential amendments.
104
Amenity, visual and construction effects
18.3 In submissions, and during the hearing, an additional matter arose being amenity effects on
local landowners (visual, noise, dust, property values) and the community (overcrowding
etc).
18.4 A number of submitters were worried about the effects of PC18 on their views. 217 Ms Parris
for example was concerned that the distant, empty rolling hills which form her view will
become a construction site and significant housing. Ms Beamsley (and a number of other
submitters 218) were concerned about the visual impact on existing houses along Motuhara
Road, Corlett Road and the Track. Other submitters sought that Plimmerton Farm be
protected in its current state and used, for example, as a park. Several submitters 219 also
linked the loss of "peaceful" views to a reduction in the value of their own property.
18.5 Amenity values under the RMA are broadly defined and includes appreciation of
pleasantness of an area. However, it is well settled that the RMA is not a no-effects, 220 nor
no-change, 221 statute. It does not require the status quo to be retained, nor create a
museum set at a point in time. As the Environment Court stated in Raudner-Muler v
Gisborne District Council 222 (albeit in relation to a rural setting but the principle is the same):
In other words, the council recognised that the countryside cannot be looked upon as
some kind of pastoral museum, but needs to be seen for what it is, a rural workshop
that evolves and changes at a variable rate in response to changing physical, social
and economic circumstances.
18.6 That is especially so in rural environments around urban areas where the strategic planning
has identified the potential for residential development for many years. Further, Plimmerton
has developed significantly over time (as shown in the aerial images provided by
Mr FitzGerald). Equally, it appeared to us from our site visit that Porirua has expanded
northwards ridgeline by ridgeline over time. PC18 is a continuation of the same trend.
18.7 While recognising that Plimmerton Farm is presently not zoned as urban, it has been
considered for urban development for a number of years. Objective 4 and Policy 6 of the
NPS-UD recognise the development and change in urban areas over time and that such
217
Including Susan Xuereb, Matthew Xuereb, Karla Beamsley, Denise Leslie, Mr and Mrs Pritchard and Ms Slessor.
218
Including Mr Botha but his concern was primarily that a visual montage and assessment had not occurred from that locale. That was
a fair comment but as it is for a plan change with the details are not presently known and requiring resource consent (and a further
landscape assessment) that gap will be addressed in the future. Also, having visited the track and surrounds we agree as to the
unobstructed views from that locale (as recognised in Appendix 1 of Ms Williams evidence).
219
Such as Ms Slessor, Susan Xuereb and Matthew Xuereb.
220
See for example Re Meridian Energy Ltd [2013] NZEnvC 59; Puke Cole Ltd v Waikato Regional Council [2014] NZEnvC 223; Te Arai
Coastal Lands Ltd v Auckland Council [2014] NZEnvC 98; Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc v Buller District
Council (No 2) [2013] NZHC 1346, [2013] NZRMA 293; and Upland Landscape Protection Society Inc v Clutha District Council EnvC
Christchurch C85/08, 25 July 2008.
221
See for example Warren v Gisborne District Council [2011] NZEnvC 103 and Straume v Hastings District Council EnvC Wellington
W14/2009, 25 February 2009.
222
EnvC Wellington W157/96, 5 November 1996, at page 9.
105
changes, including detracting on amenity values, are not of themselves an adverse effect.
As we have noted PC18 gives effect to the NPS-UD and the RPS supports urban
development that is consistent with council growth strategies.
18.8 We recognise that there will be amenity effects on surrounding landowners. Views will
change (here from rural to urban) and that change will be adverse to some landowners. We
have carefully considered the submissions and material provided (including Appendix 1 to
Ms Williams' evidence). With the intent of the Precincts, in particular reduced development
intensity and type in Precinct C, with the more intensive developments set lower down the
slopes (but we acknowledge are likely to be visible to existing landowners) along with the
extensive areas of SNAs and BORAs we do not consider that in relation to a plan change
(with a future detailed consenting process to be followed) those effects are significant
(especially significant enough to stop PC18 as some submitters sought).
18.9 Further, we consider that through protecting and enhancing the vegetation in the gully
systems, providing an open space and vegetation network through the protection and
enhancement of the SNAs and BORAs and enabling the establishment of indigenous
vegetation across the upper hills, PC18 will achieve a high quality built form that will
adequately mitigate effects of development in terms of visual (and landscape) effects.
18.10 In relation to submitters who raised effects on property values we respectfully adopt the
Environment Court's comments in Tram Lease Ltd v Auckland Transport: 223
[57] The starting point is that effects on property values are generally not a relevant
consideration, and that diminution of property values will generally simply be found to
be a measure of adverse effects on amenity values and the like: Foot v Wellington City
Council.
[58] Similarly in Bunnik v Waikato District Council, the Court held that if property values
are reduced as a result of activities on an adjoining property, then any devaluation
experienced would no doubt reflect the effects of that activity on the environment. The
Court held that it was preferable to consider those effects directly rather than the
market's response, because the market can be an imperfect measure of environmental
effects.
[59] In Hudson v New Plymouth District Council, the Court held that people concerned
about property values diminishing were inclined to approach the matter from a rather
subjective viewpoint. The Court held that such people become used to a certain
environment, and might consider that property values would drop after physical
changes occurred, however a purchaser who had not seen what was there before,
223
[2015] NZEnvC 137. See also Re Meridian Energy Ltd [2013] NZEnvC 59.
106
would take the situation as he/she/it found it at the time of purchase, and might not be
greatly influenced by matters of moment to the present owner or occupier.
[60] We agree with the findings in those cases and the reasoning behind them.
18.11 Other submitters were concerned about the effects of Plimmerton Farm development on
what was succinctly summed up by Mr Porteners as "the aesthetic locale and functioning of
Plimmerton village". Matthew Xuereb (and Susan Xuereb who submitted separately) are
concerned about traffic and parking in the village (and congestion issues in the village and at
the beach). Mr Xuereb told us that retaining the 'Plimmerton lifestyle' with PC18 would be
impossible. Ms Burgess raised concerns about access to the beach which is already over
capacity during the summer months such that PC18 would disadvantage current residents.
Her view is that Plimmerton was never built to sustain its current population so PC18 will
simply make an existing poor situation worse. While Mr Morrison acknowledged the potential
for positive effects for local businesses and shops, he noted considered the development
would impose significant pressures on the wider community to provide more facilities such as
extra boat launching areas and additional commuter parking at Paremata.
18.12 A number of submitters, 224 especially in the Plimmerton Heights area, were concerned about
construction effects (including traffic, dust and noise) as well as ongoing effects on views and
noise. In relation to construction effects they will all be fully considered at the time resource
consents are required and we are satisfied that PC18 has set up an appropriate framework
to ensure they will be adequately managed.
18.13 In relation to the other matters listed in the s 42A report, and the other chapters not otherwise
addressed in our report, we have adopted the reasons and s 32 and s 32AA evaluation set
out therein and in the s 32 report, rebuttal evidence of Mr Cumming and Anderson and their
hearing and right of reply versions of PC18.
18.14 In relation to effects on amenity values, visual effects and construction effects we consider,
for the reasons above, that PC18 provides an appropriate framework for them to be
considered at the time of resources consents when detailed information will be known and
the actual effects can be assessed. We therefore recommend that no additional changes are
required to PC18 to address these matters.
18.15 In relation to submission points on other matters:
224
Such as Susan Xuereb, Matthew Xuereb, Mr and Mrs Weinstein, Laura Lesslie, Denise Lesslie and Mr Pierce.
107
are rejected,
19. STATUTORY ASSESSMENT
19.1 We outlined above, and in Appendix 6, the statutory considerations that apply to the PC18.
We have applied the relevant statutory provisions, national directions and planning
documents and Minister's expectations in making our recommendation. We have also
considered all the extensive material provided to us throughout the process including s32
documentation, s42A reports, responses to questions, evidence, and presentations and
discussions during the hearing.
19.2 In relation to Part 2 we consider that PC18 as we recommend will promote the sustainable
management purpose of the RMA. In particular it will enable people and communities to
provide for the social, economic and cultural wellbeing within environmental limits.
19.3 In making our recommendation we have recognised and provided for the relevant matters of
national importance in s 6 and had particular regard to the relevant matters in s 7, including:
(a) the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats
(through the protection and enhancement approach we have adopted along with the
highest possible standards for stormwater and erosion and sediment controls);
(b) the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands,
water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga (see below); and
(c) kaitiakitanga (see below) and stewardship (through protection of, and access to
significant areas and their ongoing protection and management);
(d) efficient use and development of natural and physical resources (through ensuring
development potential is maximised with the environmental constraints of the site); and
(e) the effects of climate change (through hydraulic neutrality, water sensitive design,
erosion and sediment controls and natural hazard provisions all factoring in the effects
of climate change).
19.4 We have taken into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) in
s 8 and in particular the submission of Ngāti Toa.
108
19.5 We agree with, and have adopted, the approach exposed in the submission of Ngāti Toa
that:
Te Rūnanga understand the need for future housing development within the Porirua
region given its rapidly expanding population. However, it is inevitable that large-scale
greenfield development, and a substantial population increase will impact on our
current environment.
Overall, Te Rūnanga considers that any adverse cultural effects resulting from the
Plimmerton Farm development can be mitigated through the implementation of the
recommendations contained within this report, alongside best practice, high quality
development. Plimmerton Farm provides an opportunity to set the bar, nationwide.
19.6 Further, as explained, Ngāti Toa wants their whanau to come home and be able to live (and
afford to live) in Porirua. PC18 enables this, with other options for housing being
implemented and developed in the district (including by Ngāti Toa) as well as the potential for
Ngāti Toa itself to be involved in the development in the future exists. On a practical level it
also provides opportunities for Ngāti Toa to harvest harakeke (and other species and to
access sources of mahinga kai, both which are not presently available.
19.7 PC18 as we recommend enables PCC to provide for its functions (s 31), including of
ensuring that there is sufficient development capacity in respect of housing. A key
discussion through evidence, and amendments proposed by Messrs Cumming and
Anderson, has been to better integrate PC18 with the PNRP and GWRC's functions.
Stormwater, earthworks and wetland are examples of these and have been discussed in
Sections 2, 8, 9 and 10. We consider that PC18 as recommended achieves integrated
management, avoids inappropriate duplication and controls of the effects of land use,
development or protection to prevent or mitigate adverse effects (this is addressed in detail in
our report).
19.8 A s 32 evaluation report in general terms requires consideration of whether the objectives of
a proposal are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA, and whether
the provisions in the proposal are the most appropriate way to achieve those objectives.
This involves identifying other options, undertaking a cost / benefit analysis for assessing the
efficiency and the effectiveness of the proposed provisions and a summary of the reasons for
such provisions. Section 32 is set out in full at pages 3 - 4 of the s 32 report which also
states: 225
Itself taking the quote from Ministry for the Environment. 2014. A guide to section 32 of the Resource Management Act: Incorporating
225
changes as a result of the Resource Management Amendment Act 2013. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment.
109
Section 32 evaluations effectively tell the story of what is proposed and the reasoning
behind it. The Section 32 evaluation aims to communicate the thinking behind the
proposal to the community and to decision-makers. The evaluation also provides a
record for future reference of the process, including the methods, technical studies, and
consultation that underpin it, as well as outlining the assumptions and risks.
19.9 We had had particular regard to the s 32 evaluation report as set out in our report above.
For the changes introduced to the notified version of PC18 Messrs Cumming and Anderson
provides s 32AA assessments for the changes they proposed through their s 42A report,
rebuttal evidence, hearing presentation and right of reply. We have accepted those changes,
and adopted the reasons, to the extent set out in our report above (and Appendix 1).
Additional s 32AA assessments for the changes we have proposed to PC18 from the reply
version are set out in our report above.
19.10 We consider that PC18 as we recommend has been appropriately evaluated against, and
fulfils the requirements of, s 32 and s 32AA of the RMA (see Appendices 3 and 4),
including:
(a) the objectives are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA and the
provisions are the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives (including having
assessed their efficiency and effectiveness);
(b) the benefits and costs of the options (in particular here given the significant ecological,
cultural, social and economic issues in play) in particular through the approach we
have adopted; and
(c) corresponds to the scale and significance of the Plimmerton Farm proposal.
19.11 We consider that PC18 has been prepared, and amended through the hearing process and
by us, in accordance with its functions under s 31, the provisions of Part 2, its obligations to
have particular regard to its s 32 evaluation report, and the consideration of other planning
documents and regulations. As PC18 is being processed under the SPP, we must also have
regard to the statement of expectations set out in the Minister's Direction.
19.12 Section 75 of the RMA prescribes the content of district plans with subsection (3) requiring
that a district plan must give effect to any national policy statement, New Zealand coastal
policy statement, national planning standard and regional policy statement. Under s 75(4) a
district plan must also not be inconsistent with a regional plan and have regard to a proposed
regional plan. For the reasons set out in our report above we consider that PC18 as
recommended complies with these statutory requirements.
110
19.13 We have also considered, and applied as required, in reaching our recommendation, the
National Planning Standards, the requirements for making rules and we have observed
national environmental standards. As PC18 is a plan change, national environmental
standards are not determinative. 226 Any resource consents applied for following PC18 will
need to comply with the relevant national environment standards. The Resource
Management (National Environmental Standards for Freshwater) Regulations 2020 are likely
to be particularly relevant and have influenced the outcome in relation to former Precinct D
as explained in our report. We consider the approach proposed by Messrs Cumming and
Anderson in their reply appropriately observes and provides for the potential outcomes of the
NES-FW.
19.14 As a SPP is being utilised:
(a) we have had regard to the Minister's statement of expectations as set out in our report
and Appendix 5; and
(b) we have appended in Appendices 1-5, and set out in our report, the required
documents for the Minister.
20. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION
20.1 In considering PC18 we have applied in our report all the statutory requirements, including:
(a) The relevant provisions of the RMA, including Part 2 (as relevant), ss 31, 32, 32AA,
44A, 58I and 72 - 76 and Sch 1 of the RMA.
(b) The NPS-UD, NPS-FM 2020, NZCPS and the NPS-REG.
(c) The RPS and PNRP and the operative regional plans.
(d) National Planning Standards and any relevant regulations and National Environmental
Standards.
(e) The Minister's expectations that PC18 should:
(i) contribute to providing sufficient opportunities for the development of housing and
business land to meet demand, and which will provide choices to meet the needs
of people and communities and future generations for a range of dwelling types
and locations, working environments and places to locate businesses;
226
Acknowledging that section 44A(7) required the Council to observe national environmental standards, and section 44A(8) requires
the Council to enforce the observance of national environmental standards to the extent their powers enable them to do so.
111
(ii) provide for the protection of significant natural areas, significant natural features,
sites of ecological value, and the maintenance of indigenous vegetation and
indigenous biodiversity; and
(iii) ensure that future development will be undertaken in a manner that recognises
the sensitive receiving and downstream environments, such as the Taupō
Swamp, including minimising changes to the hydrological regime.
(f) The actual and potential effects on the environment.
(g) The submissions received and the changes sought in submissions (and the evidence
and substantial material provided during the hearing process).
(h) The s 32 and s 32AA evaluation reports and our s 32AA evaluations.
20.2 Acting under delegation from the Council, we recommend to the Minister that PC18 as
attached in Appendix 1 be approved for the reasons outlined in our report.
Dated this 22nd day of December 2020
_________________________
David Allen
Independent Chairperson for an on behalf of the Panel Members
112
SCHEDULE 1: LIST OF SUBMITTERS WHO ATTENDED THE HEARING
1. Plimmerton Developments Ltd (#15 & 78)
2. St Theresa's Parish (#73)
3. St Theresa's School (#72)
4. Residents of 2 - 20 James Street (#74)
5. Greater Wellington Regional Council (#49 & FS8)
6. Martin Gregory (#51)
7. Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency (#122)
8. Karla Beamsley (#44)
9. Neil Aitken (#71 & FS3)
10. Paul and Elaina Weinstein (#58)
11. Whitby Residents Association (#11)
12. Friends of Taupo Swamp and Catchment Inc (#79 & FS9)
13. Sandra Werner (#75)
14. Russell Morrison (#92)
15. Queen Elizabeth II National Trust (#128 & FS12)
16. Royal Forest & Bird Society (#112 & FS14)
17. Robyn Smith (#107 & FS4)
18. Gerardo Labbe (#62)
19. Paremata Residents Association (#93)
20. Bill McAulay (#89)
21. Robyn Moore (#123)
22. Martin Cawthorn (#126)
23. Welhom Developments Ltd (#113 & FS1)
24. Isabella Cawthorn (#103)
113
25. Te Awarua-O-Porirua Harbour and Catchment Community Trust (#52 & FS16)
26. Rebekah Burgess (#105)
27. John Cody (#45 and FS13)
28. Matthew Xuereb (#46)
29. Kate Jensen (#63) [While down to attend did not turn up at the hearing]
30. Jane Shaw (#68)
31. Paul Botha (#133)
32. Plimmerton School Board of Trustees (#56 & FS6)
33. Mass Bass (#106)
34. Wellington Electricity Lines ltd (#110 & FS10)
35. Director General of Conservation (#134 & FS11)
36. Paul FitzGerald (#47)
37. Te Runanga o Toa Rangatira (#131)
114
APPENDIX 1: PC18 - RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE HEARING PANEL TO THE MINISTER
AS TO THE TEXT OF PC18
All text to PC18 as contained in the reply of Messrs Cumming and Anderson dated 23 October
2020 with the recommended amendments of the Hearing Panel redlined. It has been prepared to
fulfil the requirements of Schedule 1 Clause 83(1)(a) of the RMA.
115
APPENDIX 2: SUMMARY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
The summary of submissions and further submissions on PC18 can be found at

https://poriruacity.govt.nz/your-council/getting-involved/public-consultation/proposed-plan-change-
18-plimmerton-farm/. It has been prepared for use in the hearing of submissions, and to fulfil the
requirements of Schedule 1 Clause 83(1)(b) of the RMA.
For completeness the Summary of Decisions requested and Officer recommendations in the s 42A
report can be found at https://poriruacity.govt.nz/your-council/getting-involved/public-
consultation/proposed-plan-change-18-plimmerton-farm/.
116
APPENDIX 3: SECTION 32 EVALUATION REPORT
The 32A evaluation report (and its attachments) can be found at https://poriruacity.govt.nz/your-
council/getting-involved/public-consultation/proposed-plan-change-18-plimmerton-farm/.
117
APPENDIX 4: SECTION 32AA EVALUATION REPORTS
The s 32AA evaluation reports can be found at https://poriruacity.govt.nz/your-council/getting-

involved/public-consultation/proposed-plan-change-18-plimmerton-farm/ in the s 42A report and
the rebuttal evidence, hearing presentation summary and reply evidence of Messrs Cumming and
Anderson.
The s 32AA assessments for changes we have proposed are contained within our report.
118
APPENDIX 5: SUMMARY REPORT ON THE MINISTER'S EXPECTATION
Introduction
1. The Minister's expectations that PC18 should:
(a) contribute to providing sufficient opportunities for the development of housing and
business land to meet demand, and which will provide choices to meet the needs of
people and communities and future generations for a range of dwelling types and
locations, working environments and places to locate businesses;
(b) provide for the protection of significant natural areas, significant natural features, sites
of ecological value, and the maintenance of indigenous vegetation and indigenous
biodiversity; and
(c) ensure that future development will be undertaken in a manner that recognises the
sensitive receiving and downstream environments, such as the Taupō Swamp,
including minimising changes to the hydrological regime.
2. We have set out our reasons in our report. This appendix simply summarises some of the
key responses to the Minister's expectations
3. In closing submissions counsel for PCC set out how, in PCC's position, PC18 responded to
each expectation. We start with that assessment and then add additional comments.
First expectation
Contribute to providing sufficient opportunities for the development of housing and business
land to meet demand, and which will provide choices to meet the needs of people and
communities and future generations for a range of dwelling types and locations, working
environments and places to locate businesses.
4. Counsel for PCC submitted that PC18 meets this requirement by:
(a) re-zoning two-thirds of the 384ha site for urban development (via Precincts A and B);
(b) enabling provision of a variety of residential dwelling types (in particular by enabling
different densities across the site);
(c) enabling appropriate commercial buildings (now primarily proposed to be located in

Precinct A) and activities both in a commercial area to be provided within Precinct A
and also through provisions allowing for:
(i) Home businesses;
119
(ii) Education facilities; and
(iii) Community facilities.
5. We agree with that assessment and as we have explained in detail in Section 15 of our
report we accept that there is a pressing resource management issue requiring more
housing within Porirua City to meet the demand. PC18 is an important component of
the Porirua housing puzzle that will contribute, along with infill housing, intensification of
density and other greenfield sites towards providing sufficient housing opportunities to
meet demand. While PC18 does not directly require affordable housing the mere option
of more land being available for housing, and more housing coming onto the market, it
will free up (or reduce the pressure on) other dwellings in the city as explained to us by
Ms Solomon on behalf of Ngāti Toa. We are satisfied that PC18 as we recommend
(Appendix 1) appropriately delivers on this expectation.
Second expectation
Provide for the protection of significant natural areas, significant natural features, sites
of ecological value, and the maintenance of indigenous vegetation and indigenous
biodiversity.
6. In relation to this expectation counsel for PCC submitted that:
(a) as proposed, PC18 protects a third of the 384ha site for indigenous biodiversity
by:
(i) identifying 44ha as being within a SNA; and
(ii) requiring 88ha of currently farmed areas to be retired and restored (i.e. the
identified BORA).
(b) The PC18 provisions also explicitly recognise and protect those areas.
(c) Via the EIBMP PC18 requires the identification and protection of additional areas
of indigenous biodiversity that are outside of SNAs and BORAs.
(d) PC18 provides for integrated management with the Regional Council in respect
of natural wetlands Recognition of downstream receiving environments.
7. We agree with that assessment. As we have explained in detail in Section 4 our

approach is to require enhancement and protection of SNAs, receiving waters and
indigenous biodiversity across the site. We consider that protection of what presently
exists is not the most appropriate long-term sustainable outcome for the site and its
120
surrounds – rather it is to improve environmental outcomes. We consider that an

enhancement outcome is eminently feasible at this site.
8. PC18, through the Strategic Objectives and Policies and subdivision provisions will
ensure that SNAs, wetlands, BORAs, other areas of significant terrestrial indigenous
vegetation and any related buffer land or ecological enhancement outcomes within the
zone are identified. Measures to ensure their protection, and restore and enhance them
are required to be developed (through the EIBMP). Through Chapters 3, 4 and 8 of
PC18 they are then protected (and enhanced).
9. Our report sets out the extensive consideration we have given to indigenous biodiversity
within the PFZ and the specific, and extensive, protection provided. We are satisfied
that PC18 as we recommend (Appendix 1) appropriately delivers on this expectation.
Third expectation
Ensures that future development will be undertaken in a manner that recognises the
sensitive receiving and downstream environments, such as the Taupō Swamp, including
minimising changes to the hydrological regime.
10. Counsel for PCC explained that this expectation is met through PC18 as it:
(a) puts in place a stringent water sensitive design approach at both macro and
micro levels;
(b) requires hydraulic neutrality;
(c) provides for integrated earthworks and erosion and sediment control with the
relevant Regional Council plan provisions;
(d) requires 20m setbacks from waterbodies and identification of the extent of
riparian planting (compared to 10m requirement in NES-FW); and
(e) includes an objective and policy to avoid adverse effects on natural wetlands.
11. We agree with that assessment and we recognise, and provide the framework for, the
highest possible standards to protect sensitive receiving and downstream environments,
especially in relation to stormwater management and sedimentation. While some of
these measures (such as water sensitive design) will be new to the region (hence some
submitters cautioned us against them) we consider that they can be appropriately
implemented through a consenting process. We have also folded, as relevant, through
PC18 the recognition of Te Mana o te Wai and the role it plays in ensuring freshwater
management is appropriately achieved.
121
12. Our report sets out the extensive consideration we have given to sensitive receiving and
downstream environments and the specific, and extensive, protection provided. We are
satisfied that PC18 as we recommend (Appendix 1) appropriately delivers on this
expectation.
122
APPENDIX 6: LEGAL FRAMEWORK
1. As mentioned in our report we have applied the approach of the Environment Court in
Colonial Vineyard Limited in considering the statutory framework (as modified for RMA
amendments and the SPP process). Without derogating from that approach, a high-level
summary of the relevant provisions is set out below.
2. Section 72 of the RMA sets out the purpose of the preparation, implementation and
administration of a district plan is to assist in this case PCC to carry out its functions to
achieve the purpose of the RMA.
3. Under section 74(1) of the RMA, the Council must prepare and change its District Plan in
accordance with its functions under s 31, the provisions of Part 2, its obligations to have
particular regard to its s 32 evaluation report, and the consideration of other planning
documents and regulations. As PC18 is being processed under the SPP, we must also have
regard to the statement of expectations set out in the Minister's Direction.
4. Section 31 of the RMA sets out PCC's functions. It provides a clear direction for addressing
long term provision for urban growth and the provision of associated strategic infrastructure
in a District Plan. 227 It also provides for integrated management and the control of the effects
of land use, development or protection to prevent or mitigate adverse effects (this is
addressed in detail in our Report).
5. Part 2 228 of the RMA sets out the sustainable management purpose (section 5) and:
(a) matters of national importance for which we must 'recognise and provide for";
(b) other matters for which we must have "particular regard to" and the
(c) we must "take into account" the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. 229
6. A s 32 evaluation report in general terms requires consideration of whether the objectives of

a proposal are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA, and whether
the provisions in the proposal are the most appropriate way to achieve those objectives.
This involves identifying other options, undertaking a cost / benefit analysis for assessing the
efficiency and the effectiveness of the proposed provisions and a summary of the reasons for
such provisions. Section 32 is set out in full at pages 3 - 4 of the s 32 report which also
states: 230
227
In particular, subsection 1, paragraphs a, aa, b, d, e, f, and subsection 2.
228
The s 32 report identifies that for ss 6 and 7 certain paragraphs are particularly relevant. For s 6 the relevant paragraphs are a, c, d,
e and h (s 6(b) is addressed in the landscape section of our Report). For s 7 the relevant paragraphs are a, aa, b, c, d, f, g and i.
229
Objective 5 of the NPS-UD also requires us to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.
230
Itself taking the quote from Ministry for the Environment. 2014. A guide to section 32 of the Resource Management Act: Incorporating
changes as a result of the Resource Management Amendment Act 2013. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment.
123
"Section 32 evaluations effectively tell the story of what is proposed and the reasoning
behind it. The Section 32 evaluation aims to communicate the thinking behind the
proposal to the community and to decision-makers. The evaluation also provides a
record for future reference of the process, including the methods, technical studies, and
consultation that underpin it, as well as outlining the assumptions and risks."
7. If we decide to recommend changes to PC18 as notified, we must carry out a further

evaluation under s 32AA to support those changes.
8. Section 75 of the RMA prescribes the content of district plans with subsection (3) requiring
that a district plan must give effect to any national policy statement, New Zealand coastal
policy statement, national planning standard and regional policy statement. Under s 75(4) a
district plan must also not be inconsistent with a regional plan.
9. Also relevant are sections:
(a) 74(2); we must have regard to a proposed regional plan (in this case the PNRP) in
regard to any matter of regional significance or for which the regional council has
primary responsibility under Part 4;
(b) 75; including giving effect to NPSs and the RPS and not being inconsistent with any
regional plans;
(c) 76; when making rules in PC18;
(d) 44A(7); requiring every local authority (and us) to observe national environmental
standards; and
(e) 58I; and the National Planning Standards (which do not direct amendments to plan
changes but obvious consistency is to be encouraged).
10. As a SPP is being utilised:
(a) under cl 82 of Schedule 1 of the RMA we must have regard to the Minister's statement
of expectations; and
(b) under cl 83(1) of Schedule 1 of the RMA, we must provide the Minister with specific
documents (appended in Appendices 1-7).
124
APPENDIX 7: JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE
Introduction
1. On 27 August Forest & Bird and QEII National Trust filed a memorandum ('joint
memorandum') informing the Panel as to the existence of a Memorandum of Understanding
(MoU) between Porirua City Council (PCC) and Plimmerton Developments Limited (PDL).
2. The joint memorandum requested: 231
"… that the Hearing Panel directs the Council to set aside the MOU and act as an
independent and impartial planning authority in exercising its functions in relation to PC18.
This would include:
a. ensuring the council does not have a financial interest in favouring one submitter;
b. not working with one submitter to respond to the submissions of other parties; and
c. not agreeing the content of its reply submissions with one submitter."
3. The joint memorandum also requested that the Hearing Panel address the existence
(inherently the content and effect of) the MOU as a preliminary matter. 232
4. Given the concerns held by Forest & Bird and QEII National Trust we have decided to issue
a jurisdiction decision now rather than in with our substantive recommendation to the Minister
for the Environment. In doing so we have carefully read the various memoranda provided by
the parties and thank the parties for the succinct way they have responded.
The MOU
5. In Minute 2 we summarised the MOU as follows:
"At its core the MOU is a document setting out how the parties will work together to efficiently
progress PC18, including cost recovery provisions for PCC. The MOU makes it clear that
PCC's regulatory roles are outside of the MoU. However, it provides an ability for PDL to
cease paying costs in the event of an adverse outcome that materially affects PDL's
commercial interests. It also addresses dealing with submissions and choosing experts for
the hearing."
6. The MOU records that PCC "recognises the appropriateness of Plimmerton Farm for
residential and commercial development, and wishes to advance the plan change and SPP
as a council-initiated process … ."
231
At [21]
232
At [9].
125
7. Clause 2.3 of the memorandum was commented on by a number of submitters. It reads as

follows:
"The Parties agree that PDL is seeking a proposed plan change that enables it to meet
certain commercial requirements to enable a viable development be (sic) undertaken at
Plimmerton Farm. PDL will not be able to agree to support, or continue to fund, a
propose plan change that will not accord with those commercial outcomes." (Emphasis
added.)
8. We note however it is immediately followed by clause 2.4 that states nothing in the MOU
shall limit or affect the obligations of PCC (recognising the submitters issue that the mere
threat of stopping funding does exactly that).
9. The MOU applies in part to processes relating to the preparation of the draft PC18, 233 the
council's resolution to proceed with PC18 234 and PCC's application for a direction from the
Minister. 235 For the reasons below, we do not set those provisions out.
10. In relation to the hearing process the MOU sets out: 236
(a) that the parties will work together to prepare evidence in support of PC18;
(b) that the parties expect to achieve agreement on any amendments to PC18 offered by
the council, including in response to submissions, in particular through any evidence to
be exchanged;
(c) if the parties are unable to agree, and PDL considers the amendments to be material
and adverse to its interests it may decide not to make further reimbursement to PCC
for its costs in pursuing PC18 (there are some dispute provisions if needed);
(d) if agreement is reached on amendments to PC18 then PDL will make its technical
experts witnesses available to be called by PCC in support of PC18 and it is
anticipated those witnesses will be called by PCC in addition to any peer review
witnesses;
(e) PDL will support PCC's case on PC18; and
(f) while procedure is up to the Hearing panel, in providing its closing PCC will consult with
PDL (and its consultants) prior to finalising its closing and seek agreement to any
changes.
233
Clauses 3.2-3.10.
234
Clauses 3.11-3.14.
235
Clauses 3.15-3.16.
236
Clause 3.17
126
The joint memorandum
11. In summary, the core issue for Forest & Bird and QEII National Trust as succinctly set out in
the joint memorandum is that PCC "will not be neutral and independent in performing its role
as a planning authority in relation to Plan Change 18, and will favour one submitter (PDL)
over other submitters." 237 According to Forest & Bird and QEII National Trust that places
PDL in a privileged position, creates a financial incentive for PCC to support PDL's position
and creates a breach of natural justice. The concern also remains despite our appointment
as the Hearing Panel as it has, in Forest & Bird's and QEII National Trust's submission,
"tainted" 238 the information (including the s 42A Report and evidence) we have received from
PCC.
12. The directions sort in the joint memorandum are set out above.
13. For completeness, the joint memorandum attaches correspondence from Forest & Bird and
QEII National Trust to PCC and a letter back from PCC (to Forest & Bird). In its letter dated
3 March 2020 Forest & Bird set out the cause for their concern being that "the MOU will
prevent the council from properly protecting this outstanding wetland [Taupō Swamp]." 239
The letter concludes with Forest & Bird commenting that if the MOU is not terminated it will
consider its options "including seeking a declaration from the Environment Court that the
MOU is unlawful or a judicial review of the Minister's decision [now made] to grant the
streamlined process."
Minute 2
14. Having read the joint memorandum and its attachments on 11 September 2020 we issued
Minute 2 that requested responses (if any) from PCC, PDL and Forest & Bird and QEII
National Trust. Those responses were duly received, and we thank the parties for their
succinct responses.
Memoranda by PCC and PDL
15. In its memorandum PCC:
(a) repeats its position on the MOU as set out in its letter of 17 March 2020 (attached to
the joint memorandum) has not changed, "namely that:
(a) primarily the MoU was an administrative document that did not limit the Council's
statutory functions or regulatory powers;
(b) the Council remains the 'owner' of PC18;
237
At [6].
238
At [15].
239
At [3].
127
(c) the Council drafted PC18 and satisfied itself that it was comfortable with the
provisions before PC18 was notified;
(d) the MoU did not create an obligation to reach an agreement on how to respond to
submissions;
(e) the independent hearing commissioners will make recommendations to the …

Minister; and
(f) the final decision on PC18 ultimately rests with the Minister." 240
(b) that as PDL is the owner of the entire PC18 area it is "reasonable and realistic for
[PCC] to engage with PDL to a significant degree"; 241
(c) entering into a cost-share agreement is "an orthodox and proportionate step for the
Council to take"; 242
(d) all witnesses called by PCC are independent experts and have abided by the Code of
Conduct and their impartiality can be assessed in the usual way; 243
(e) that PCC's statutory functions are not affected and "it is drawing a very long bow" to
suggest that other submitters will be treated less favourably; 244 and
(f) the Hearing Panel does not have the jurisdiction to set aside the MoU (and even if it did
it should not). 245
16. PDL's memorandum adopted the council's submission and provided 4 further points
including that "the lawfulness of the MoU is not a matter within the Panel's scope or power to
review."
Memorandum in response by Forest & Bird and QEII National Trust
17. Forest & Bird and QEII National Trust respond to the above memoranda through its second
memorandum, noting:
(a) that they remain very concerned and that they "do not accept the Council has, or will,
properly fulfil its statutory role as a planning authority"; 246
(b) that PCC had failed to respond the critical issue of concern that "it has given itself a
financial interest in the outcome of PC18" such that the fairness of the process is
240
At [4].
241
At [5].
242
Ibid.
243
At [7]-[8].
244
At [9]-[11].
245
At [13].
246
At [2].
128
jeopardised by the threat of PDL withdrawing funding (and that this creates a conflict of
interest); 247
(c) the issue is not cost-sharing "but enabling cost-sharing decisions to influence the
Council's approach to PC18" and that the MOU fails to "safeguard" PCC's "ability to
impartially undertake its statutory functions"; 248
(d) that the financial arrangements create a position where one submitter is favoured and
such an outcome is not "drawing a very long bow"; and
(e) in relation to witnesses that:
(i) PCC has not properly discharged its obligations (in that there has been no
independent evaluation by PCC in circumstances where 'PDL experts' are
providing evidence now for PCC; and
(ii) the Hearing Panel cannot be confident that the information it is receiving from
PCC is truly independent (not criticising the experts themselves).
18. Forest & Bird and QEII National Trust remain of the view that the directions sought in the
joint memorandum remain appropriate.
DISCUSSION
Our role
19. Our role is to hear, consider and recommend to the Minister whether to approve PC18.
20. While we have broad powers to manage the hearing process, including to request further
information and commission reports, we need a valid reason to do so and cannot act beyond
them.
21. Matters such as the preparation of the draft plan, and PCC resolving to accept and notify the
draft plan are, in our view, beyond our jurisdiction. That appears to a degree accepted by
Forest & Bird and QEII National Trust in that there are various comments about an
Environment Court declaration or a judicial review / High Court proceeding. Further, the fact
is PCC has completed those steps, and the Minister has accepted the SPP application. Our
job is to assess PC18 as we find it applying the statutory requirements (including the
Minister's direction) and having considered the submissions and the evidence we receive
(including the s 42A report).
247
At [3]
248
129
22. Further, we do not consider we have any jurisdiction to instruct PCC to set aside the MoU.
That is a matter solely for PCC to decide.
MOU
Financial interest
23. While the drafting of the MOU could have been worded more tightly to avoid the arguments
that have been raised, in our view:
(a) overall:
(i) we do not interpret it as providing a financial interest for PCC in the overall
outcome of PC18; and
appropriately carved out within the MOU;
(b) the approach adopted of using independent experts appropriately separated PCC from
the evidence we received and the proposed versions of PC18 advanced by the
independent planners; and
(c) the matters where PDL can cease funding relate primarily to processes that occurred
prior to our appointment.
24. Advancing the last point, the concerns raised by Forest & Bird and QEII National Trust in
relation to this issue and relevant to us for the hearing are, in our reading, most relevant to
clauses 3.17(c) and (d) (and to a lesser extent (i) although that does not appear to have a
cost implication). They state that PCC and PDL expect to reach agreement on changes to
the proposed plan offered by PCC, including in response to submissions, and will use best
endeavours to do so to the extent practicable. But if agreement is not reached and PDL
considers it to be material and adverse to its interests then it may decide to not further
reimburse PCC (noting there are dispute provisions).
25. Forest & Bird and QEII National Trust's position, relevant to us, is that this has compromised
the independence of PCC's witnesses (noting they are not criticising the experts
themselves). PCC's position is that it has engaged independent experts (addressed further
below) who have all complied with the Code of Conduct. The positions presented in the s
42A report and accompanying evidence are the independent experts. 249 They are not PCC's
249
Noting the comment at paragraphs 10 and 11 of Forest & Bird and QEII National Trust's second memorandum.
130
positions. 250 As counsel for PCC states "the independence and impartiality of the Council's
witnesses can be assessed by the Hearing Panel in the usual way." 251
26. As independent experts they are not concerned with how PCC receives funding for their work
(either via PDL or direct from PCC) and PCC is obligated to pay them for their work knowing
their obligations under the Code of Conduct. Having read all of the evidence (including the
joint witness statements) and heard from the experts, we are comfortable that the potential
for PDL to threaten withdrawal of funding to PCC has not influenced the expert evidence we
have received. PCC's experts have substantially amended the proposed provisions in
response to submitter and expert input.
27. Finally, PDL's position before us was also limited to a narrow range of issues but there were
differences of opinion between PCC and PDL which counsel for F&B acknowledged may "go
some way to allaying submitters concerns. However, submitters have not been informed of
this." 252
28. We are therefore comfortable that the potential threat of funding has not, in this case,
influenced the evidence we received and the positions advanced by the experts engaged by
PCC.
Favouring 1 submitter
29. In relation to this matter Counsel for PCC stated that "PCC has not entered into discussions
with PDL in consideration of, or in response to, submissions." 253 As counsel for F&B noted
"perhaps this is an acceptance that the Council should not favour one submitter over
others." 254
30. We consider that addresses this issue but do note, as mentioned above, that the experts
engaged by PCC have substantially amended the proposed provisions in response to
submitter and expert input.
Orthodox and proportionate
31. Overall, this matter comes back to the financial interest and the potential to therefore favour
one submitter over others. It is orthodox to have cost-share agreements (and is prudent
protection of ratepayer's money by PCC). What is less orthodox, and the issue for the
submitters, is the ability to terminate funding on the basis of a detrimental position being
advanced. In reality, as set out above, for the hearing process at least we do not consider
the MOU influenced the material and evidence provided to us.
250
And PCC has no further role in the process with our recommendation
251
At [9].
252
Legal Submissions for F&B at [72].
253
Opening legal Submissions for PCC at [68].
254
Legal Submissions for F&B at [72].
131
OVERALL OUTCOME
32. We note Forest & Bird and QEII's underlying concern is the protection of the significant
Taupō Swamp (and also we would add protection of the SNAs and wetlands on the
Plimmerton Farm site itself). That concern was raised by numerous submitters and is
accepted through PCC's s 42A report and in its supporting evidence, as well as in expert
conferencing. Overall it comes down to how those environmental protections are
implemented and as mentioned the experts engaged by PCC have substantially amended
the proposed provisions in response to submitter and other expert input. We are comfortable
with the evidence we received on behalf of PCC's independent experts and see no evidence
that the MOU has adversely influenced the quality or content of the evidence and material we
have received nor affected our ability to comply with all statutory requirements.
33. Further, while the drafting of the MOU could potentially have been worded more tightly to
avoid the arguments that have been raised, in our view:
(a) overall:
(i) we do not interpret it as providing a financial interest for PCC in the overall
outcome of PC18; and
appropriately carved out within the MOU; and
(b) we do not have the jurisdiction to direct the Council to set aside the MOU nor to direct it
as to how it will exercise its functions in relation to PC18.
34. We therefore do not make the directions sought by Forest & Bird and QEII National Trust.
132
APPENDIX 8 – COMMENTS RECEIVED ON DRAFT SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE
Our report addresses a number of comments received and our recommended PC18 provisions in Appendix 1 responds to all comments to the
degree we accept them.
Collation of Comments on Plan Change 18 Hearing Panel Draft Recommendations – Supplied by PCC on 15 December 2020 and updated
with our comments
Comments From: Paragraph Comment Proposed change (if any)
Robyn Smith 1.2 Paragraph 1.2 of the Report includes this text: "The Panel's Comment: The Panel is satisfied that the
Plimmerton Farm Zone is intended to provide for urban two 'arms' of Taupō Swamp are appropriately
development including housing (of varying densities), a protected through the "outstanding" listing and
retirement village, a commercial area, water sensitive design policies and rules in the PNRP and that this
to protect sensitive receiving waters and protection and GWRC process is the appropriate approach.
augmentation of Significant Natural Areas (SNAs), including They do not need duplicated protection through
wetlands that form part of the outstanding Taupō Swamp PC18. Their recognition in the Planning Maps
Complex" [emphasis added]. However, the Report omits to sufficiently puts people on notice.
include those "wetlands that form part of the outstanding
Taupō Swamp Complex" in the SNA schedule. The Report
also omits to include comment about the implications of
Policy 23 of the RPS nor has it stated how omitting to include
known wetlands as SNAs gives effect to the RPS [section
75(3)(c) of the RMA refers].
Te Awarua o Porirua Harbour 2.7 (c) Misspelling of name Change "Greys" to "Grays"
and Catchment Community
Trust and Guardians of Panel's Comment: Done.
Pauatahanui Inlet
Te Awarua o Porirua Harbour 2.7 (i) Misspelling of name Change "awa" to "ara"
133

Trust and Guardians of
Panel's Comment: Done.
Pauatahanui Inlet
Robyn Smith 2.21 At Para. 2.21 the Report says this: "For earthworks, in Panel's Comment: PC18 only applies to
response to evidence from GWRC20 over consistency, PCC earthworks not exceeding 3,000m2. Earthworks
proposed amendments to the earthwork provisions to avoid greater than that will be addressed by GWRC
consenting duplication for earthworks over 3,000m2." On the (through the PNRP). The Panel has considered
other hand, at Para. 19.3 the Report claims that section 6 of this comment but its position does not change.
the RMA matters have been recognised and provided for ".
through the protection and enhancement approach we have
adopted along with the highest possible standards for
stormwater and erosion and sediment controls."
The Report is in error when it claims section 6 matters are

addressed when it is recommending the Council abdicates
all responsibility (in terms of section 31 of the RMA) for
managing erosion and sediment effects of bulk earthworks
(ie: larger than 0.3ha.).
Robyn Smith 2.21, 2.23, At several instances the Report suggests avoiding Panel's Comment: Process decided on by PCC
10.7 and 19.7, unnecessary duplication is desirable. At Para. 2.36 the and accepted by the Minister.
2.36 Report refers to the proposed district plan which was notified
on 8 August 2020.
The Report omits to include comment about the duplication

of the RMA First Schedule process whereby, in effect, non-
statutory documents (for example, the Northern Growth
Structure Plan) applicable to the same land are driving two
contemporaneous plan change streams, the notification of
which is only separated by 11 weeks. The Report therefore
omits to answer the question: "why are costs of potential
duplication in consenting (which are borne by a private
company) a significant consideration, but the costs of
134

potential duplication of a RMA First Schedule process (which
are borne by all ratepayers) are of no consequence?" So,
the section 32 analysis is incomplete and omits critical
aspects.
Greater Wellington Regional 2.23, 2.28 These paragraphs refer to the NPS-FM 2020 as if it was a Amend to clarify that the NPS-FM 2020
Council new NPS, but it replaced a previous NPS-FM. replaced the NPS-FM 2014 (amended 2017)
and set new policy direction and
requirements.
Panel's Comment: Done at 2.23.
Te Awarua o Porirua Harbour 3.1 Grammatical error Change "principle" to "principal"

Trust and Guardians of Panel's Comment: Done.
Pauatahanui Inlet
Robyn Smith 3.1 Section 3.1 of the Report includes this text: "In the 'Principle' should read 'principal'.
1840s Taupō (now known as Plimmerton) became the
principle settlement for Ngāti Toa." Panel's Comment: Done.
Robyn Smith 3.3(c) Section 3.3(c) of the Report refers to: "outstanding As noted at Para. 23 of Mr Warburton's
water body". evidence, the correct description (as taken
from the Schedule A3 of the pNRP) is: 'a
wetland with outstanding indigenous
biodiversity values'.
Panel's Comment: Done
Te Awarua o Porirua Harbour 6.1 Grammatical error Change "principle" to "principal"

Trust and Guardians of Panel's Comment: Done
Pauatahanui Inlet
135
Robyn Smith 6.12 At Para. 6.12 the Report says this: "Similarly, the Erosion Panel's Comment: The Panel has considered
and Sediment Control Principles have been developed within this comment but its position has not change.
PC18 to ensure the WIP recommendations are appropriately
considered at the time of development. This will provide a
more robust solution than what is currently required in the
GWRC's ESC guidelines" [my emphasis]. This is wrong, and
I refer to comment in Mr Warburton's evidence (See section
134, and 155-160 of Mr Warburton's evidence) and his
hearing presentation, where he notes that claims of ponds
being "built one third larger than the requirements set out in
the Greater Wellington Regional Council Erosion and
Sediment Control Guidelines for the Wellington Region" does
nothing more than is already required in the Guidelines
where there is a sensitive downstream environment.
Robyn Smith 8.65(d) At Para. 8.65(d) the Report erroneously refers to the NPS- It should be NPS-FM.
FW 2020.
Greater Wellington Regional 9.16 Typo in document. "Mr Wilson was of the opinion that rain
Council ranks tanks are one…"
Bill McAulay and May Bass 10.6 - 10.9 Sections 10.6 - 10.9 of the Report refer to PCC's consenting Panel's Comment: The Panel has considered
role with respect to earthworks. At Para. 10.9 the Report this comment but its position has not changed.
says: That agreement fundamentally changed the scope of
the earthworks discussion …" The Report fails to record or
acknowledge the contrary opinions by other experts, and
that fact that other experts were not in 'agreement'.
Friends of Taupo Swamp & 10.6 - 10.9 Sections 10.6 - 10.9 of the Report refer to PCC's consenting Panel's Comment: The Panel has considered
Catchment Inc role with respect to earthworks. At Para. 10.9 the Report this comment but its position has not changed.
136

Robyn Smith 10.6-10.9 Sections 10.6 - 10.9 of the Report refer to PCC's consenting Panel's Comment: The Panel has considered
role with respect to earthworks. At Para. 10.9 the Report this comment but its position has not changed.
Robyn Smith 12 In Section 12 - 'Subdivision Provisions' the Report refers Panel's Comment: Reference made.
to comments made by Mr Cumming and Mr Anderson but
the report omits to makes reference to the evidence of
other experts (for example, Mr Warburton).
Robyn Smith 12.1 At Paragraph 12.1 the Report states: "… no evidence was Panel's Comment: Reference made.
received at the hearing relating to these." ("these" being the
subdivision provisions). This is incorrect. In this regard, I
refer to the evidence by Mr Warburton (Paras. 219 to 256)
and also his presentation notes provided at the hearing.
Robyn Smith 12.6 At Para. 12.6 the Report says: "… there were no key Panel's Comment: Reference made.
issues of contention or dispute at the hearing that related
to the subdivision provisions". Mr Warburton's presentation
to the hearing referred to 22 'key points'. Point 22 related
to 'Section 10 - Subdivisions and Land Management
Plans'. It is wrong to say that key issues were not
contended or disputed.
Robyn Smith 14, 2.36 At Para. 14 the Report says this: "An important factor to In fact, PC18 is a proposed plan change.
remember is that PC18 is a plan change." and Para. 2.36
137

says this: "While PC18 is a change to the operative plan,".
Bill McAulay and May Bass 14.6 Section 14.6 of the Report refers to 'discussion during the Panel's Comment: Reference made.
hearing'. The Report omits to refer to evidence about
landscape matters except for that given by the council
witnesses. This being case, evaluation of Mr Warburton's
evidence (for example, Para. 68 - 73) is omitted.
Friends of Taupo Swamp & 14.6 Section 14.6 of the Report refers to 'discussion during the Panel's Comment: Reference made.
Catchment Inc hearing'. The Report omits to refer to evidence about
Robyn Smith 14.6 Section 14.6 of the Report refers to 'discussion during the Panel's Comment: Reference made.
hearing'. The Report omits to refer to evidence about
John Cody 15.25 Draft report paragraph 15.25 - focus
The point of the paragraph is not clear for readers who have Panel's Comment: Accepted in part and wording
not reviewed the written submissions or the relevant changed to the extent accepted.
appendix to the Pre-Hearing report and were not present
during the oral submission. An explicit report would state:
Mr Cody,178 while he accepted Precinct A and sought that

PC18 in relation to it be adopted, raised in his submission
that the s 32 report provided no substantive evaluation of
options and relative efficiency (other than a preliminary report
on feasibility of medium density housing). During the hearing
Mr Cody criticised PCC for not having population and
138

housing experts available to answer questions from
submitters, and for explicitly placing the onus on residents to
engage their own experts. He questioned the adequacy of
the reports and documents cited by the Council. He gave as
an example the lack of any mention of population projections
that suggest all the population growth in the region over the
next 20 years will be in cohorts over 65 years of age.
Therefore, he [or Mr Cody] considered that the key
underpinning of PC18 was missing.
It is not apparent that the Hearing Panel referred to any

demographic information other than the exaggerated
generalisations provided by Porirua City Council so I include
the following diagram from the Wellington Regional Growth
Framework Foundation Report 2020 to illustrate the reason I
specifically referred to age structure in my oral submission.
John Cody 15.26 Draft report paragraph 15.26 - delete first phrase Panel's Comment: See on website the document
"Reply to questions asked of Andrew Cumming
The opening phrase 'In response to questions from Mr Cody' and/or Thomas Anderson on behalf of PCC
can be read as suggesting that I received a response from dated 9 October 2020."
Messrs Cumming and Anderson on or after 9 October. Neither
139

I nor the Friend of Submitters has any recollection of an
exchange of that kind. Be that as it may, my main interaction
with Council representatives is Appendix 3 in the Pre-Hearing
report. There are many things wrong with the content of that
document, not least that a note I drafted for discussion with
the Friend of Submitters was forwarded immediately to PCC
without being revised for that purpose. However, every
paragraph of the response raises issues related to either the
process or the Environment Court standards pertaining to
expert evidence. The content of the exchange needs to be
either discussed thoroughly or put aside. The Panel has
reached its conclusions on the points in the PCC
memorandum of 28 September 2020 at various points in the
draft report so the particular reference in this paragraph to my
enquiry can be deleted from the report.
Russell Morrison 18.11 While not a big deal, I do believe that most people reading A more accurate summary of my thoughts
the last sentence of para 18.11 on page 102 of the Draft (which the Panel might like to consider) would
Report would get the impression that I thought differently be something like:
from the other submitters mentioned in that paragraph -
whereas both my submission and presentation expressed While Mr Morrison acknowledged the
similar concerns to theirs. potential for positive effects for local
business and shops, he noted that the
development would impose significant
pressures on the wider community to
provide more facilities such as extra boat
launching areas and additional commuter
parking at Paremata.
Robyn Smith 20.2 Section 20.2 of the Report says this: "Acting under Panel's Comment: Done.
delegation from the Council, we recommend to the Minister
140

PC18 as we recommend (see Appendix 1) be approved for
the reasons outlined in our report." I could be wrong but this
doesn't make sense.
John Cody Executive Executive summary paragraph 24 - delete the last Panel's Comment: The Panel has considered
summary sentence with consequential amendments through the this comment but no change to the report is
paragraph report required.
24
The Hearing Panel has concluded that: 'We are satisfied
that PC18 is required, as part of a wide and robust
package (including intensification) being promoted by
PCC, to respond to the National Policy Statement on
Urban Development (NPS- UD) and the significant housing
issues within Porirua.' There was no evidence to justify a
conclusion that the package is a 'robust' response to the
significant housing issues in Porirua. Specifically, there
was no attempt to respond to the requirements in the NPS-
UD 3.23(2) and consequently the implication that the Plan
Change responds to contemporary standards of urban
development is misleading. From a public perspective the
conclusions of the Panel only reflect the predetermined
position of the body that appointed it.
If the Panel had addressed the question of 'sufficient'

housing that is in its Terms of Reference there might have
been a basis for assessing the interaction with other
development in the District.
It did not. The conclusions in the Hearing Panel report are

based on Council estimates of 'oversupply' in a growth
strategy (the outer zone in the diagram below). There was no
information provided or sought about 'actual' housing (the
core zone in the diagram).
141
During the Pre-Hearing meeting much was made of the

status and integrity of 'evidence' that met the standards of
the Environment Court. On the question of sufficient
housing the clear distinction between lay opinion and expert
evidence has been lost with the introduction of untested
opinion of Council officers without demonstrated expertise
in analysing demographics or housing markets.
Consequently the sentence should be deleted and
consequential amendments made to similar statements
through the report.
142
Robyn Smith Several The Report conflates hydraulic neutrality with hydrology. For Panel's Comment: Changes have been made as
including example, Para. 33(d) of the Report includes this text: "The appropriate to respond to this comment.
33(d), 9.11 ability to minimise changes to the hydrological regime
through water sensitive design, hydraulic neutrality, setting
aside roughly a third of the site (and providing for
revegetation) as well as providing 20m setbacks of
earthworks and development from waterbodies." Also, Para.
9.11 includes this comment: "Second, hydraulic neutrality is
important to minimise changes to the flow regimes of the
downstream receiving environments so they maintain their
life supporting capacity."
Hydraulic neutrality is simply about ensuring that peak

flows/volumes into the reticulated network (pipes and
channels) are no greater post-development than they are
before development, and normally as it applies to situations
where there is a network constraint. Minimising changes to
the hydrological regime (or hydrology mitigation) is about all
facets of the catchment hydrology (not just the infrastructure
which is what hydraulics deal with); including peak flows,
mean flows, base flows, and annual flows. The two concepts
are completely different (as explained in Ms Afoa's evidence
and her response to the questions I asked)
(http://www.foresitegroup.net/whats-the-difference-between-
hydrology-and-hydraulics/ ) If that differentiation is not made
and accommodated then the Minister's expectation will not
be achieved.
Robyn Smith Several The Report on several occasions infers that part of the Panel's Comment: Changes have been made as
including 14, Plimmerton Farm site is included in the Kakaho Special appropriate to respond to this comment.
3.3(g), and Amenity Landscape with the inference being that the SAL
13.1(c) already exists (refer Para. 14, 3.3(g), and 13.1(c)]. This is
143

incorrect. With PC18 it is intended that a new SAL policy
overlay will apply to some of the site, albeit without any
evidence to justify that form of regulatory response.
Robyn Smith Clause Clause 10(b) of Appendix 5 to the Report says: "requires Panel's Comment: Changes have been made as
10(b) of hydraulic neutrality including flow and volume controls to appropriate to respond to this comment.
Appendix 5 minimise changes to the hydrological regime." I acknowledge
that this is what PCC's counsel inferred. But it is erroneous
for the Report to imply that this is factual. Hydraulic neutrality
does nothing to minimise changes to the hydrological regime
in terms of mean and base flows. Hydraulic neutrality is only
about managing flows in the infrastructure network as they
relate to potential flooding due to capacity constraints.
Robyn Smith The Report omits to include a statement relating to the Panel's Comment: The Panel has considered this
scope of the Panel's authority under the delegation given to comment but no change to the report is required.
it by the Council, and also a statement about process and
procedural matters (for example, expected timetable)
agreed by way of the Panel's engagement by the Council.
Robyn Smith The Report omits to include a record noting the fact that no Panel's Comment: The Panel has considered this
evidence was adduced relating to the flood hazard areas. comment but no change to the report is required.
Mr Wilson answers #11 and #12 to my questions say this:
"Wellington Water undertook this work was for PCC. It was
adopted and notified as part of PC18. 12. I was not involved
in the process to delineate and determine the extent of the
flood hazard area."
Robyn Smith The Report omits to give any acknowledgement or Panel's Comment: The Panel has considered this
recognition to lay experts. comment, there is reference to submitters and
lay experts, no further change is required.
Robyn Smith The Report omits to include a list of appearances of Panel's Comment: The Panel has considered this
144

experts, along with their credentials. comment but no change to the report is required.
All expert evidence, and the credentials, can be
found on the website.
Robyn Smith The Report omits to include an overview of the composition Panel's Comment: The Panel has considered this
of the submitters: for example; the proportion who are comment but no change to the report is required
private individuals, NGOs, companies, etc; the proportion of
submitters opposed, neutral or support; etc.
Robyn Smith The Report omits an overview statement about any scope Panel's Comment: The Panel is satisfied as to
issues that may have arisen. Potential scope issues have scope of PC18, the submissions and the
been referred to in evidence, and it is an omission if the changes made.
Report does not address them. If scope issues, where they
have been raised, are not addressed it draws into question
the legitimacy of the entire plan change.
Robyn Smith The Report omits to record the fact that no evidence was Panel's Comment: The Panel has considered this
adduced relating to determination of landward limit of the comment but no change to the report is required
coastal environment, the flood hazard areas nor the The Panel is comfortable with the information
special amenity landscape overlay. provided and from conducting its site visit.
Robyn Smith The Report omits to record the fact that the Panel heard no Panel's Comment: The Panel has considered this
evidence explaining if and why the PFZ should be included comment but no change to the report is required
or excluded from being within the coastal environment. The Panel is comfortable with the information
The Report at the very least needs to include a statement provided and from conducting its site visit.
noting that the Panel has determined that the spatial layer
does not relate to the PFZ but also that there is no
evidence why this should be the case.
Robyn Smith The Report omits to record Ms Williams' answer to my Panel's Comment: The Panel has considered this
questions about the identification of the landward extent of comment but no change to the report is required
the coastal environment, which was: "I had no involvement in The Panel is comfortable with the information
the process to determine the location of the inland extent of provided and from conducting its site visit.
145

the coastal environment."
Robyn Smith The Report omits to record Mr Warburton's comment (Foot Panel's Comment: The Panel has considered this
note #10 of Mr Warburton's hearing presentation dated 14 comment but no change to the report is required.
October 2020) about the need for spatial layers to be applied
on the basis of robust cost-benefit analysis, and with
sufficient information and evidence available about the basis
on which the overlays were established.
Robyn Smith The Report does not include an explanation for the Panel's Comment: The timeframes appear
discrepancy between the 'urgency' and 'tight time frames' incorrect. The direction is that a draft report must
which were mentioned several times at the hearing and also be provided within 50 working days of the start of
in various correspondence, and the fact that under the the hearing. The final report is required 10
Minister's direction the delivery of the Panel's report to the working days thereafter.
Minister could have been as late as 23rd March 2021.
Robyn Smith The Report refers to 'jurisdictional issues/matters', in relation Panel's Comment: The Panel has considered this
to the fact that council witnesses have been engaged in the comment but no change to the report is required
PFZ project both by PCC and also by the
landowner/developer.
However, the Report omits to make any mention of process

and quality assurance issues that have been noted in my
submission and Mr Warburton's evidence, notwithstanding
that the implications and consequences of these process and
quality assurance issues are potentially more significant and
concerning as these relate to unauthorised amendments to
the plan change documents. In this regard, I refer to:
· Sections 16.1 and 16.2 of my submission (which refers

to the fact that proposed plan change notified on 20 May
2020 differs from the plan change approved by the
Council in December 2019);
146
· Sections 117 - 123 of Mr Warburton's evidence (which

refers to the fact that proposed plan change notified on
20 May 2020 differs from the plan change approved by
the Council in December 2019) two different versions of
the s42A report were uploaded to the Council's website);
and,
· Section 10 of Mr Warburton's evidence (which refers to

the fact that two different versions of the s42A report
were uploaded to the Council's website).
Robyn Smith The Report omits to include any analysis discounting the Panel's Comment: The SFRC method has been
option of specifying that consent applications under rules deleted.
PFZ-R1 (consent for a SFRC) and SUB PRF-R7 (subdivision
consent where there is no SFRC) are required to be notified
under all circumstances. So the section 32 analysis is
incomplete and omits critical aspects.
Robyn Smith The Report omits to mention or summarise correspondence Panel's Comment: The Panel has considered this
by way of memorandums between the Panel and parties to comment but not change is required.
the plan change; for example, my memorandum dated 22
October 2020.
Robyn Smith The Report omits to include copies of requests for Panel's Comment: The Panel has considered this
clarification about procedural matters and the Panel's comment but not change is required.
responses (Refer Attachment One to Mr Warburton's
evidence, and Attachment One to my evidence).
Robyn Smith Evidence was given suggesting the PFZ development relies Panel's Comment: The Panel has considered this
on creating detention areas in low-lying areas, gullies, and/or comment but not change is required.
existing wetlands. The Report omits to include commentary
about how existing wetlands and stream channels can be
used for retention areas while still achieving the outcomes of
147

the NPS-FM (for example, Policy 6) and regulatory
requirements of NES-FW. The obvious conflict was noted in
submissions, evidence and questions of council witnesses,
but resolution of that conflict, and the related question about
the actual viability of the entire development, has been
omitted from the Report.
Robyn Smith Several times in the Report reference is made to the Panel's Comment: The Panel read the questions
Panel's attendance to matters or issues of concern raised and responses. There has been reference to the
on submissions, evidence and discussions at the hearing. question process. The Panel has added two
more general references.
This starkly contrasts to the complete omission in the Report
to any issue or matter of concerns raised in the written
questions of witnesses and their responses. The Report
omits therefore to give any recognition to, or
acknowledgement of, what was submitters' only option to
challenge the opinions of council witnesses.
Robyn Smith I trust you will take my comments about errors and Panel's Comment: See comments in this
omissions into account and amend the Report accordingly. document.
Plimmerton Developments PDL's legal submissions state that the Strategic Framework Panel's Comment: Done.
Ltd Resource Consent and associated provisions are ultra vires
and need to be changed.
Plimmerton Developments PDL's legal submissions state that there are mapping and Panel's Comment: Response in the final report.
Ltd scope errors in respect of the extent of BORAs.
Royal Forest and Bird Throughout Dr van Meeuwen-Dijkgraaf's name has been Change to Dr van Meeuwen-Dijkgraaf
Protection Society of NZ Inc misspelled throughout the Decision.
Robyn Smith There are several instances in the Report where Dr van Panel's Comment: Done.
Meeuwen-Dijkgraaf is referred to as Dr Meeuwen-Dijkgraaf.
148
Bill McAulay and May Bass The Report has omitted any acknowledgement that there Panel's Comment: Have commented on
was vigorous rejection of the proposed plan change by many opposition and added names to the relevant
submitters during the hearings footnote.
Bill McAulay and May Bass There is no commentary about submissions made by Bill Panel's Comment: Have added names to the
McAulay or May Bass who rejected the proposed plan relevant footnote.
change
Bill McAulay and May Bass During the pre-submissions hearings, the PCC planners Panel's Comment: The Panel has considered this
were asked for evidence of two successful NZ developments comment but not change is required.
in a catchment of a similar sensitive environment to Taupo
Swamp. The planners cited only one example - Long Bay
development (within Auckland Council control). Video and
written evidence was presented during the submission by
May Bass that Long Bay development had resulted in
significant sedimentation of the receiving waters. Hauraki
Gulf.. The Draft Plan has omitted any evaluation, discussion
or reference to this PCC-cited comparable development.
Bill McAulay and May Bass The PCC planners had earlier agreed following the first Panel's Comment: The Panel has considered this
round of submissions that there should be a 'construction comment but not change is required.
season' to avoid working during likely heavy rain periods to
avoid flooding of sediment into downstream receiving waters.
Bill McAulay presented evidence from GWRC Taupo Stream
flood data that showed that serious flooding events over the
period 2000 to 2020 have occurred in each calendar month.
The Draft Report omits any evaluation of a planning
requirement for a construction season.
Bill McAulay and May Bass In the absence of any technical expert flood data being Panel's Comment: The Panel has considered Mr
presented it appears that the PCC Planners opinion has McAulay's data but no change to the report is
been accepted. The Draft Report has omitted the flood data required.
that Bill McAulay presented.
149
Bill McAulay and May Bass Despite PCC asking for input from the community the Draft Panel's Comment: The Panel has considered this
Report omits to give any acknowledgement or recognition comment, there is reference to submitters and
to lay experts. lay experts, no further change is required.
Bill McAulay and May Bass The Report omits to include an overview of the composition Panel's Comment: The Panel has considered this
of the submitters: for example; the proportion who are comment but no change to the report is required
private individuals, NGOs, companies, Residents'
Associations, local, regional and national environmental
groups etc.
Friends of Taupo Swamp & The Report omits to give any acknowledgement or Panel's Comment: The Panel has considered this
Catchment Inc recognition to lay experts. comment, there is reference to submitters and
lay experts, no further change is required.
Friends of Taupo Swamp & The Report omits to include a list of appearances of Panel's Comment: The Panel has considered this
Catchment Inc experts, along with their credentials. comment but no change to the report is required.
All expert evidence, and the credentials, can be
found on the website.
Friends of Taupo Swamp & The Report omits to include an overview of the composition Panel's Comment: Panel's Comment: The Panel
Catchment Inc of the submitters: for example; the proportion who are private has considered this comment but no change to
individuals, NGOs, companies, Residents' Associations, the report is required. The report acknowledges
local, regional and national environmental groups etc; the opposition to PC18. The Panel has considered
proportion of submitters opposed, neutral or support; etc. the submission, and presentation by FOTS and
The fact that over 90% of submitters opposed the Plan its supporters.
Change is not seen as worthy of comment. In the very early
stages when PCC was seeking an SPP process from the
Minister, the Developers and Porirua City Council staff
engaged with Friends of Taupo Swamp & Catchment with
both onsite visits to Plimmerton Farm, correspondence and
meetings at which key contractors took part. That dropped
off. However, our membership has remained active and
engaged at every stage of the Plan Change process. FOTSC
150

is the only organisation ever to have all the landowners in the
Catchment in the same room at the same time, all with an
interest in conserving and advocating for the range of values
inherent in that land. The amount of interest and concern
coming to us as the local 'go to' organisation saw us
encourage submitters, connect experts, hold many meetings.
From such input, we spent considerable time and effort on
our website so that the concerns we were hearing about the
proposed Plan Change could be voiced. FOTSC was not
alone in this- other voluntary groups such as PHAACT,
GOPI, Forest and Bird similarly invested heavily in
engagement with their membership over a period of around
two years in the lead up and during the Hearing process -
and continue to do so. They are invisible in the Report.
In short: Any perceived value attached to such a high level of

considered community engagement and response from
FOTSC, and others, has been omitted from the Panel's
Report.
Friends of Taupo Swamp & The Report omits an explanation for the discrepancy Panel's Comment: The timeframes appear
Catchment Inc between the 'urgency' and 'tight time frames' which were incorrect. The direction is that a draft report must
mentioned several times at the hearing and also in various be provided within 50 working days of the start of
correspondence, and the fact that under the Minister's the hearing. The final report is required 10
direction the delivery of the Panel's report to the Minister working days thereafter.
could have been as late as 23rd March 2021. The latter
timeframe would have enabled our organisation and other
interested submitters to fully grasp and respond to the Panel
Report - released just 7 days before comments closed on
December 10th 2020. At this time of the year we see this as
an unfair burden on submitters. And it has not enabled our
members to respond in time with a more detailed
151

memorandum.
Friends of Taupo Swamp & FOTSC would like to see these omissions seriously Panel's Comment: See comments in this
Catchment Inc considered, and look forward to an amended Report. document.
Robyn Smith The Report erroneously refers to Rule SUB PFZ - R7(4). Panel's Comment: Refence no longer in report.
There is no proposed subrule (4).
Robyn Smith The Report on several occasions erroneously refers to It should be Special Amenity Landscape.
the Kakaho Significant Amenity Landscape.
Robyn Smith The Report variously refers to: Taupō stream/Taupō I believe in all cases all words should be
Stream; Taupō swamp/Taupō Swamp, and Kakaho capitalised.
stream/Kakaho Stream.
Robyn Smith Appendix 1 to the Report includes this text: "It has been Panel's Comment: Done.
prepared to fulfil the requirements of to fulfil the
requirements of Schedule 1 Clause 83(1)(a) of the RMA."
Repetition of the phrase "to fulfil the requirements of" is an
error.
Gerardo Labbe Please add my contacts details as per my Business Card Gerardo Labbe
9 A Westridge, Camborne Porirua 5026
Mobile: 02102243 595 BARCELONA

HOUSING SYSTEMS
New Zealand Representative
Panel's Comment: Not required in report and all

the details are included on the website.
152
Porirua City Council Counsel for PCC consider that the Strategic Framework Refer to PCC's proposed redraft of PC18,
Resource Consent, and associated provisions, are ultra attached to legal comments on the draft
vires, and require amendments. report and recommendations on behalf of
PCC, dated 15 December 2020.
Comments on the Draft Recommended Provisions
Comments From: Provision Comment Proposed change (if any)
Porirua City Council New Definition Suggest adding definition of Area of Significant Terrestrial, Refer to PCC track changes document.
Indigenous Biodiversity outside of SNAs and BORAs to
Panel's Comment: Accepted.
provide more certainty about what such areas are and
making them easier to refer to
Plimmerton Definition of [The Panel's addition Over time as the BORAs establish they Panel's Comment: No Change.
Developments Ltd BORA are likely to become part of the Significant Natural Areas is]
not appropriate as there is a separate definition of SNA and
the statement only intimates they are 'likely' to become
SNAs.
153
Royal Forest and Bird Definition of The Definition refers to a 'consented Strategic Development Clarify what the Strategic Development Plan
Protection Society of NZ Inc Significant Plan under Policy PFZ-P3.' is, perhaps at the start of PFZ-IR, or as part of
Natural Area PFZ-P3.
It is not 100% clear what the term 'Strategic Development
Plan' refers to however, as the only other time it appears is Panel's Comment: Reference deleted.
in PFZ-IR xviii.
The Decision does use this term, e.g. at paragraph 12.12(c).
A different (but obviously related) term used elsewhere in the

provisions is 'Strategic Framework Resource Consent'.
Plimmerton 3. Strategic In the NPS objectives are described as intended outcomes Recommend reinstatement of 'Objectives'.
Developments Ltd Outcomes
[and consequential changes throughout]
Panel's Comment: Accepted in part – policies

have been retained (but amended)
Porirua City Council Strategic Objectives is consistent with National Planning Standards. Recommend reinstatement of 'Objectives'.
Outcomes Objectives are desired outcomes
[and consequential changes throughout]
Panel's Comment: Accepted in part – Policies

has been added.
Plimmerton PFZ-O1, PFZ-P1 PDL suggests deleting PFZ-P1 and moving its objectives to Refer to PDL track changes document.
Developments Ltd PFZ-O1.
Panel's Comment: Rejected but policy
redrafted).
Porirua City Council PFZ-P1 PCC suggests renaming the policy to avoid referring to Refer to PCC track changes document.
outcomes (which are the role of objectives) and some
Panel's Comment: Accepted
words are deleted to simplify, avoid using an undefined
term "whole of zone approach". By definition, the policy
gives effect to the strategic objectives.
154
Porirua City Council PFZ-P2 PCC suggests this policy is given effect to by PFZ-P1, Refer to PCC track changes document.
which sets out the required approach and implements the
strategic outcomes set out in PFZ-O1. Adding an "avoid"
policy to an undefined 'whole of zone approach' is likely to
conflict with the rule structure established in other sections.
Porirua City Council PFZ-P3 PCC suggests reworking the policy to achieve the spatial Refer to PCC track changes document.
certainty sought in a vires framework.
Plimmerton PFZ policies PDL suggests these policies are reworked. Refer to PDL track changes document.
Developments Ltd
Panel's Comment: Accepted in part – policies
redrafted.
Plimmerton PFZ-R1, PFZ-IR PDL suggests these are deleted. Refer to PDL track changes document.
Developments Ltd
Porirua City Council PFZ-R1, PFZ-IR PCC suggests deleting the rule because no new rules are Refer to PCC track changes document.
required to implement (amended) PFZ-P2. The existing
subdivision and land use provisions, with amended matters
of discretion to link to the strategic policies PFZ-P1 and PFZ-
P2 above, are appropriate.
The information requirement is moved to the subdivision

provisions and amended as noted.
Plimmerton 5. Transport PDL suggests consequential changes resulting from Refer to PDL track changes document.
Developments Ltd recommended deletion of SFRC.
Plimmerton 7. Ecosystems PDL suggests consequential changes resulting from Refer to PDL track changes document.
Developments Ltd and Indigenous recommended deletion of SFRC.
Biodiversity
Porirua City Council 7. Ecosystems PCC suggests a consequential clarification to the breadth of Refer to PCC track changes document.
155

and Indigenous the section. Panel's Comment: Accepted.
Biodiversity
Plimmerton 8. Earthworks PDL suggests consequential changes resulting from Refer to PDL track changes document.
Plimmerton 10. Subdivision PDL suggests consequential changes resulting from Refer to PDL track changes document.
Plimmerton 10. Subdivision PDL see no reason why this chapter can't be brought to the Panel's Comment: Accepted.
Developments Ltd front directly after the strategic outcomes section so the
information requirements are not lost in the plan change.
Porirua City Council 10. Subdivision PCC suggests moving the subdivision section to immediately Refer to PCC track changes document.
follow the strategic section. This is to address the Hearing
Panel's concerns that the subdivision consent sat too deep
within the body of PC18 (draft report at 4.22(a)).
The changes suggest cross-referencing to the strategic

policies and referring to the strategic policies as matters of
discretion in the rules in the same manner as other policies
are referred to throughout.
Plimmerton 12. Precinct A PDL suggests consequential changes resulting from Refer to PDL track changes document.
Welhom Developments Ltd PFZ-P3, PFZ-R1, Welhom generally supports the draft recommendations, On that basis, Welhom seeks that PFZ-P3,
subject to the addition of PFZ-P3 - Strategic Framework PFZ-R1, and PFZ-IR be removed from the
and PFZ-IR
Resource Consent and its associated rule and information draft provisions, along with any other
requirements (PFZ-R1 and PFZ-IR). associated changes necessary. The removal
of those provisions may well require more
Welhom considers that the requirement for a Strategic
substantive changes to the plan change
Framework Resource Consent prior to any other consent
provisions to ensure that the Strategic Zone
being obtained on the site is ultra vires in accordance with
156

the principles of Queenstown Airport Corporation Limited v outcomes of PFZ-P1 are achieved.
Queenstown Lakes District Council [2014] NZEnvC 93. The
Panel's Comment: Accepted in part.
status of other activities cannot be derived from a resource
consent as they are derived from the Act and its subsidiary
planning instruments, and a failure to obtain the proposed
consent cannot prevent an applicant from undertaking an
activity that is otherwise permitted on the site under the plan.
Robyn Smith The Report is proposing a new consent concept - called the Panel's Comment: Accepted.
'Strategic Framework Resource Consent' (SFRC). However,
the Report omits to state exactly what type of consent this
would be (ie: a land use consent [in terms of section 9(3) of
the RMA] or a subdivision consent. It must be one or the
other. If it is a land use consent then it must be clear exactly
what activities are potentially authorised by it. On the face of
it, the concept of the SFRC is just a glorified list of matters
that are subject to information requirements.
Te Awarua o Porirua PFZ-IR (ix) We see this as an important part of the Strategic Zone Could the Panel make a reference to this in its
Harbour and Catchment requirements decision - it covers a key issue on how the
Community Trust and extent of planting proposed for riparian margin
Guardians of Pauatahanui setback areas will be managed and
Inlet maintained on an ongoing basis
Greater Wellington PFZ-IR Consider including reference to the species intended to be The extent of planting proposed for all
Regional Council planted in riparian margin areas as well as the extent of riparian margin setback areas (including
subclause ix
planting. species to be planted and extent of planting)
and how they will be managed and
maintained on an ongoing (as necessary)
basis.
Panel's Comment: No change proposed –
157

drafting considered appropriate.
Porirua City Council SWPFZ-O1 PCC suggests deleting the word 'shall' so the objective is Refer to PCC track changes document.
expressed a statement of desired outcomes
Greater Wellington PFZ-IR Not clear why the Ecosystems and Indigenous Biodiversity Amend to apply to subclauses (i) to (ix).
Regional Council Management Plan would only apply for subclauses (i) to
subclause x Panel's Comment: Accepted.
(vii) - is this an error?
Porirua City Council ECOPFZ-O1 The suggested use of Area of Significant, Terrestrial Refer to PCC track changes document.
Indigenous Biodiversity as a defined term arises here and
several other places.
Plimmerton ECOPFZ-O1 Not entirely necessary to include the 'identified as part Refer to PDL track changes document.
Developments Ltd of…" because that's the policy process bit covered in
ECOpfz-P3
Porirua City Council ECOPFZ-P3 Suggested amendments to match suggested definition and Refer to PCC track changes document.
the wording structure of ECOPFZ-P1.
Plimmerton ECOPFZ-P4 This ["required by"] is not strictly legally correct - the Refer to PDL track changes document.
Developments Ltd identification and management is, under the RMA,
undertaken by the Regional Council under the NES-FM.
Suggest it be amended to "referenced in" rather than

"required by".
Plimmerton ECOPFZ-P5 This is clearly an error as the Panel has expressed comfort Refer to PDL track changes document.
Developments Ltd with the effects hierarchy process. It then is inconsistent
Panel's Comment: No change proposed – it is
and therefore an error (by the Panel's own reasoning) to
made clear in the report that the Panel accepts
make this change as it doesn't follow that hierarchy and
Dr van Meeuwen-Dijkgraff's evidence in part.
provides no opportunity to minimize the loss of ecosystem
The Panel considers that its approach is
types and their extents.
appropriate for the site.
Request all changes to this policy are removed as it sets up
158

a new hierarchy / framework.
Plimmerton ECOPFZ-P7 There is some uncertainty as to what would qualify under this Panel's Comment: matters clarified and defined.
Developments Ltd phrase [areas of significant terrestrial, indigenous biodiversity
outside of Significant Natural Areas and Biodiversity
Offsetting and Restoration Areas], which it may be
appropriate to clarify, or define. This would be a minor or
technical change for better certainty and administration;
although could also be considered an error because of how
uncertain it is.
Plimmerton ECOPFZ-P8 This addition [ECOPFZ-P8(1)] elevates one SNA above Refer to PDL track changes document.
Developments Ltd others. Scope issue as PDL do not recall submitters
Panel's Comment: No change proposed –
requesting hierarchy / ranking of SNAs.
report clear as to why this area needs additional
Request that it be deleted. protection. The Panel also understands from its
site visit that the area is already fenced.
Plimmerton ECOPFZ-R1, This change [deletion of indigenous] means that trimming Refer to PDL track changes document.
Developments Ltd ECOPFZ-R2 exotic vegetation in BORAs needs consent, even if
Panel's Comment: Accepted in part – change
undertaken to facilitate restoration and planting of
kept but circumstances clarified. The report is
indigenous vegetation (that is permitted). This could be an
clear that such vegetation can have value.
unintended consequence, and therefore an error if not a
mistake
Royal Forest and Bird ECO-R1 Typographical error in title to rule Replace 'careas' with 'areas'
Protection Society of NZ Inc
Royal Forest and Bird ECO R1-2 M1 and These are dealt with at paragraph 8.34-8.36 of the Decision. Delete M1 and M2, and reinsert those
Protection Society of NZ M2 Para 8.34 notes the evidence seeking that the controlled provisions as conditions b. and c. of the
Inc status "should be subject to the new path being in controlled rule.
accordance with a 'tracks network plan' and also the PCC
Track Standards manual." The Panel apparently agrees with
that evidence in paragraph 8.36. However, those two matters
159

have not become conditions for the controlled rule, rather
they have become matters of control. This will not actually
require those conditions to be met for controlled status to
apply.
Royal Forest and Bird ECO-R3 Typographical error in title to rule Replace 'careas' with 'areas'
Protection Society of NZ Inc
Plimmerton ECOPFZ- This is considered ultra vires for the reasons given in the Refer to PDL track changes document.
Developments Ltd response. There is an opportunity to identify these through
Appendix 1 Panel's Comment: Accepted.
subdivision processes.
Greater Wellington EWPFZ-O1, Wording could be read so as to have the conditional "The receiving environments including Taupō
Regional Council subclause 2 statement "where practicable" applying to the full Swamp, Taupō Stream and Te Awarua-o-
objective, rather than only the enhancement. Porirua Harbour are protected from
earthworks activities and related erosion and
sediment effects and, where practicable,
enhanced;", where practicable;
Plimmerton SUBPFZ-O4 This [inclusion of areas of significant terrestrial indigenous Refer to PDL track changes document.
Developments Ltd biodiversity outside of Significant Natural Areas and
Panel's Comment: Rejected but wording is
Biodiversity Offsetting and Restoration Areas] is ultra vires,
changed, and definitions provided.
for the reasons given in the response.
If also suggests that the same level of protection be given to

each of the areas, which may not be intended, necessary or
appropriate
160
Plimmerton SUBPFZ-P2 This [inclusion of while minimising fragmentation of SNAs Refer to PDL track changes document.
Developments Ltd and BORA] is not required as subdivision consent is
Panel's Comment: Rejected.
required under Rule SUBPFZ-P5 for subdivision of a site
with a SNA or BORA, including boundary adjustments, and
accordingly is an error.
Plimmerton SUBPFZ-P5 [PDL suggests rewording] is a reinstatement of the rebuttal Refer to PDL track changes document.
Developments Ltd version with a few minor amendments plus it incorporates
Panel's Comment: Rejected. The Panel
some information requirements recommended by the panel
considers the controls appropriate. In relation to
where the first subdivision is an appropriate trigger level.
the level of information as mentioned in the final
This process of positively identifying non-indig veg with report the Panel considers that such information
habitat values means that ECOpfz-R1 and R2 can refer to is required given the values of the site and its
indigenous veg not all veg. surrounding environments. Broad ecological
principles will not provide for a 'better than best
[(2)] PDL maintain that this level of information cannot be
practice' approach or outcome nor for the level
reasonably (or sensibly) provided upfront at the first
of detail needed to ensure sustainable
subdivision. Refer to the response as to reasonableness
management outcomes. This is set out in detail
and the disproportionate costs/requirements of providing all
in Section 4 of the report.
of the information up front. It could be that at the first
subdivision, a broad set of 'ecological principles' (eg like the
freshwater principles) could be set out that signals the
overarching mechanisms or the framework where specific
details are further confirmed at subdivision stage.
This enables further specificity around the individual SNAs

and BORAs to be provided at the time where the adjacent
land uses / activities are understood.
It is also noted that the EIBMP provides a level of detail

commensurate with the level of subdivision.
161
Plimmerton SUBPFZ-R7 PDL suggests this rule is ultra vires. Refer to PDL track changes document.
Developments Ltd
Panel's Comment: Provision deleted.
Porirua City Council SUBPFZ-R7 PCC suggests the rule is superfluous because the matters Refer to PCC track changes document.
are covered in the policies and the other subdivision rules
have to give effect to the policies as matters of discretion
Plimmerton SUBPFZ- PDL suggests new and amended information requirements. Refer to PDL track changes document.
Developments Ltd Information
Panel's Comment: Accepted as in a similar
Requirements
approach is provided.
Porirua City Council SUBPFZ- PCC suggests as a consequential change of the suggested Refer to PCC track changes document.
Information subdivision-based approach to spatial certainty the moving
Requirements of PFZ-IR to become SUBPFZ-IR-1.
PCC suggests the information requirements in relation to

transport and the commercial centre are not necessary
because they do not add to the requirements of the policy
provisions that the land use provisions must give effect to.
Porirua City Council PAPFZ-P1 Consequential strengthening of cross-reference to strategic Refer to PCC track changes document.
policies.
Plimmerton Map A-PFZ-2 PDL states that the maps are incorrect, were amended Refer to PDL legal submissions.
Developments Ltd (Overall Page without scope, and should be amended to reflect the BORA
Panel's Comment: See comments in the final
Number 184), extent shown on the Precinct Plan as notified.
report. While the panel has sympathy for this
Precinct Plan
outcome for the reasons therein it does not
(Overall Page
consider it can make the change sought.
Number 156), Open
Space Plan (Overall
Page Number
(159), Precinct C
Plan (Overall Page
162

Number 160),
163

Final PC18 Recommendation Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final PC18 Recommendation Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BEFORE AN INDEPENDENT HEARING PANEL APPOINTED BY PORIRUA CITY COUNCIL

IN THE MATTER OF the Resource Management Act 1991

IN THE MATTER OF a hearing by Independent Commissioners appointed by the Porirua

Final Report and Recommendations

Central resource management issue

17. The s 42A report commented:

308. As detailed in PCC Housing development Summary attached as Appendix 2, the

(i) providing a variety of densities, heights, housing typologies and locations of

(a) The size of the site and therefore:

(iii) enabling important components of the development to relocate if necessary (as

34. The provisions as we recommend them:

(a) Establish strategic and zone-wide objectives and policies;

(b) Require appropriately detailed information on ecological matters to be included with

(a) PC18, drafted to reflect our recommendations (Appendix 1);

(b) a summary report of the written submissions (Appendix 2);

(i) any relevant national direction; and

(ii) the RMA or regulations made under it.

1.8 We have also appended for convenience:

(a) the legal framework (Appendix 6);

1.12 Our report:

(a) provides a summary of:

(i) the background leading to the notification of PC18; and

(b) describes the hearing process that was followed; and

(c) explains in the reasons for:

(i) our recommendations on the key issues; and

(ii) our recommended changes to PC18 (Appendix 1).

PC18 as notified, submissions received and prehearing process

2.7 We undertook a site visit on 9 September 2020 during which we:

(a) viewed the site from various points along SH1;

(a) cultural effects;

(b) ecosystems and indigenous biodiversity;

(c) stormwater management;

(d) earthworks and sediment control;

(e) housing supply and demand;

(h) compliance and monitoring; and

Draft report process

Statutory framework and considerations

2.27 The relevant planning documents in relation to PC18 are the: 25

(b) National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 (NPS-FM);

(c) New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS);

(e) National Planning Standards;

(h) the operative District Plan.

National Policy Statements

2.32 Further detail on the NPS-UD is provided in Section 15.

Proposed District Plan

Other relevant documents

3.3 Features of the 384ha Plimmerton Farm include that it:

4.5 Dr Blaschke (expert ecologist for PCC) stated in his evidence:

86. In my opinion, accelerated sedimentation is the single most significant potential

(a) The size of the site and therefore:

(iii) enabling important components of the development to relocate if necessary (as

41. The provisions as we recommend them:

(a) Establish strategic and zone-wide objectives and policies;

(b) Require appropriately detailed information on ecological matters to be included with

(a) Confirmation, through subdivision consents of SNAs, Areas of Significant Terrestrial

(c) Identification of the commercial centre.

(d) Requirements to:

(i) Protect and enhance significant indigenous biodiversity;

(iii) Achieve high quality and well-connected built forms; and

(iv) Provide effective ongoing management, monitoring and

assessment of ecological values as small subdivisions occur, it is likely to result in a

"… is to nurture a resilient environment to sustain future generations through reclaimed

(a) Water quality, including flooding and stormwater issues;

(b) Managing the effects of earthworks, particularly sedimentation;