The area at Pongakawa where the Pencarrow Estate is planned.
A controversial 130-home development in the Western Bay of Plenty is one step closer, despite opposition.
The Pencarrow Estate project would see between 120 and 130 new homes and a commercial zone built on a Pongakawa dairy farm.
However, the plan has been met with opposition due to the lack of public transport and the land being outside a designated urban growth area.
The Western Bay of Plenty District Council’s District Plan Committee accepted the private plan change request last Thursday.
The development will be subject to public notification and submissions before it can be approved. As part of the proposal, 12.37 hectares of land on Arawa Road would be rezoned from rural to residential. Between 120 and 130 homes could be built on 8.15 hectares, while a commercial zone would cover 1600 square metres.
The homes would be a mix of higher-density housing, about 350sq m a lot, and lower-density housing, about 500sq m a lot.
Plans included a stormwater reserve, onsite wastewater treatment area, roads, a village green and a playground. Both Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency and the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (BOPRC) raised concerns about the project during the initial consultation period. Waka Kotahi said other housing opportunities existed at nearby Paengaroa, where there was greater potential for public transport, walking and cycling. The current plan could leave a high reliance on private vehicles.
”Meeting housing need through ad hoc plan changes and developments could undermine opportunities for development,” the Waka Kotahi submission said.
The area was not identified as a growth location under the Urban Form and Transport Initiative (UFTI), said the agency. The UFTI, which provides a combined approach to transport, housing and urban development, is made up of SmartGrowth, Waka Kotahi, the Western Bay, Tauranga City and Bay of Plenty regional councils, iwi and community leaders.
The BOPRC said the proposal was contrary to Regional Policy Statement policies and the National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land.
The consent applicant and council couldn’t reach an agreement, despite ongoing correspondence, as “the applicant does not agree with the BOPRC assessment”.
BOPRC senior environmental planner Anna Price said the consent should go through the process of public notification, despite it being outside a designated urban growth area.
This would allow for submissions and further conversations, especially with the regional council, Price said.
Speaking for the applicant, Momentum Planning and Design senior planner Vincent Murphy said the development could help meet the rising demand for housing in the area and deliver social infrastructure.
”There has been a lack of investment in social infrastructure to service that community for some time,” Murphy said.
“The plan change includes the ability for commercial entities to establish reserves [and] pathways to enhance the access to social and community infrastructure.”
Murphy said there was demand for housing because land was being converted to horticultural use and the nearby Rangiuru Business Park was under development.
Horticultural land had a much larger demand for employees than dairy farming, he said. The UFTI said the district’s eastern corridor was expected to accommodate 20,000 homes in the future.
No plan changes so far would come close to delivering that, said Murphy.
Pongakawa has one residential area directly across from the proposed development on Arawa Road.
It also has a primary school, community hall, and sports action centre on the southern side of State Highway 2. The closest residential settlements are Pukehina Beach and Paengaroa. Murphy said some of the constraints included infrastructure, traffic and amenity, and retaining the rural character.
The applicants were working with Waka Kotahi over safety concerns around the highway intersection and planned improvements. They had also included a bus stop to provide public transport, Murphy said.
”There is a fair issue around loss of rural land. However, we’re strongly of the view that this is a very insignificant issue.”
The loss of rural land was less than 10ha, compared to over 70ha of the farm itself, Murphy said.
Mayor James Denyer agreed the development faced challenges.
”We are perhaps not in a position to make a detailed assessment of this plan change and to consider its potential merits versus possible drawbacks,” Denyer said.
”I therefore vote to accept the plan change and leave it to a public process so that all the arguments can be fully heard.”
Councillor Anne Henry said the area was “very short” of housing and the development would be contained to a “certain extent”.
Maketu-Te Puke ward councillor Grant Dally said there “hadn’t been a lot of action” to provide the housing projected by the UFTI.
”This is something on the ground that can be worked towards fulfilling the need. There is a clear and present need for developments of this sort,” Dally said.
- Public Interest Journalism funded through NZ on Air
A disregard for authority could be why those attending court are thumbing their noses.