Agenda of District Plan Committee

DISTRICT PLAN COMMITTEE
Membership:	6 elected members Chair: RMA Certified (RMA hearing commissioner under Making Good Decisions programme) Minimum of either 3 or 4 elected members (including the Chair) and alternates who have current certification under the Making Good Decisions Training, Assessment and Certification Programme for RMA Decision-Makers. The inclusion of independent Commissioners in hearing subcommittees or hearing panels as appropriate
Quorum:	3
Meeting Cycle:	Meets on a six weekly basis, as required or at the requisition of the Chair
Reports to:	Council

3 20 February 2017

District Plan Committee

29 December 2016

File: (16/1442)

Report no: DPC2017/1/20

Ecosites, Landscapes and Coastal Natural Character

Purpose of Report

1. This report sets out a suggested whole-of-Council approach to the management of significant ecosites, landscape areas and coastal natural character areas.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Committee:

(i) notes the work currently being undertaken on the District Plan review of ecosites, landscapes areas and coastal natural character areas;

(ii) recommends that Council approves the management of significant ecosites, landscape areas and coastal natural character areas involves a whole-of-Council approach including regulatory management in the District Plan complemented by non-regulatory methods including:

(a) a new Parks and Gardens Division role to work on biodiversity and landscape matters on Council land and to work with private landowners on property management plans and access to funding and information;

(b) a fund for land management and enhancement works including planting, fencing, weed and pest management, and covenanting assistance;

(c) consent fee remission including where consent requirements are triggered solely by ecosite, landscape or coastal natural character District Plan provisions or activities are being carried out in accordance with an agreed management plan;

(d) amendment (via Special Consultative Procedure) of the existing rates remission policy for protected culturally significant sites, historic buildings, structures and places, and archaeological sites to address significant ecosites, landscapes areas and coastal natural character areas; and

(iii) recommends to the Community Plan Committee that an additional $87,000 per year for Parks and Gardens work and consent fee remission is provided for in the Long Term Plan.

Background

2. This section explains the terms ecosites, landscape areas and coastal natural character areas and sets out Council’s obligations to manage and protect them in regard to private land. District Plan provisions will not apply to the Conservation estate. The terms and their origins are summarised in Table 1 below.

Table 1 - Terms and Their Origins

· Habitats with significant indigenous biodiversity values

· Ecologically significant areas

· Natural areas

Suggested HCC Summary Term	Component Terms	Origin
Coastal Natural Character Areas	· Coastal Natural Character Areas	· Section 6(a) RMA · NZ Coastal Policy Statement
Coastal Natural Character Areas	· Areas of High Coastal Natural Character	· Wellington Regional Policy Statement
Landscape Areas	· Outstanding Natural Features · Outstanding Natural Landscapes	· Section 6(b) RMA
Landscape Areas	· Special Amenity Landscapes	· Wellington Regional Policy Statement
Ecosites	· Areas of significant indigenous vegetation · Significant habitats of indigenous fauna	· Section 6(c) RMA
	· Indigenous ecosystems	· Wellington Regional Policy Statement
	· Biodiversity/habitat	· HCC Environmental Sustainability Strategy
	· Significant Natural Resources	· City of Lower Hutt District Plan

3. Council’s obligations to manage and protect ecosites, landscape areas and coastal natural character areas come from the Resource Management Act and national and regional policies that stem from the RMA.

4. Section 6 of the RMA requires Council to:

…recognise and provide for the following matters of national importance:

(a) the preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment (including the coastal marine area), wetlands, and lakes and rivers and their margins, and the protection of them from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development;

(b) the protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development;

(c) the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna.

Coastal Natural Character Areas

5. The NZ Coastal Policy Statement provides further policy direction to Council on the concept of coastal natural character in Section 6(a). Policy 13(2) of the NZCPS states:

Recognise that natural character is not the same as natural features and landscapes or amenity values and may include matters such as:

(a) natural elements, processes and patterns;

(b) biophysical, ecological, geological and geomorphological aspects;

(c) natural landforms such as headlands, peninsulas, cliffs, dunes, wetlands, reefs, freshwater springs and surf breaks;

(d) the natural movement of water and sediment;

(e) the natural darkness of the night sky;

(f) places or areas that are wild or scenic;

(g) a range of natural character from pristine to modified; and

(h) experiential attributes, including the sounds and smell of the sea; and their context or setting.

6. Section 6(a) requires coastal natural character to be preserved and protected from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development.

7. The RPS (Policy 3) refines that requirement to mean that areas of high coastal natural character need to be protected from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development.

8. The RPS (Policy 4) also requires district plans to identify by policies and/or rules the landward extent of the coastal environment.

9. The City of Lower Hutt District Plan does not currently identify or address coastal natural character areas or identify the landward extent of the coastal environment.

Landscape Areas

10. Section 6(b) introduces the landscape terms outstanding natural features and outstanding natural landscapes. The requirement is protection from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development.

11. The RPS notes that outstanding natural features and outstanding natural landscapes:

…are considered to be exceptional and iconic, and while not necessarily pristine, they are landscapes in which natural elements and processes dominate.

12. The RPS then introduces a further category of landscapes - Special Amenity Landscapes. The RPS states that Special Amenity Landscapes are:

…more modified than the outstanding natural landscapes and features, they are none the less distinctive, widely recognised and highly valued by the community.

13. The RPS requires that Special Amenity Landscapes are managed to maintain or enhance these values.

14. The District Plan does not currently identify or address landscape areas comprehensively and systematically. While the zone called Landscape Protection Activity Area purports to “recognise the unique physical landscape of the steep undeveloped residential areas, and its contribution to the visual backdrop of the City” it has not been identified and located using any recognised landscape assessment methodology.

Ecosites

15. Section 6(c) requires:

…the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna.

16. The Regional Policy Statement for the Wellington Region (RPS) explains (p139) that:

District and city councils in the Wellington region have primary responsibility for controlling the use of land to maintain indigenous biological diversity (other than in the coastal marine area and the beds of lakes and rivers) through the creation of objectives, policies and rules in their district plans.

Wellington Regional Council has the primary responsibility for the control of the use of land to maintain and enhance indigenous ecosystems in water bodies (including wetlands) and coastal water.

17. The RPS uses the terms indigenous ecosystems and habitats with significant indigenous biodiversity values. In this report, areas of significant indigenous vegetation, significant habitats of indigenous fauna, indigenous ecosystems and habitats with significant indigenous biodiversity values are termed Ecosites.

18. The RPS requires district plans to include policies, rules and methods to protect indigenous ecosystems and habitats with significant indigenous biodiversity values from inappropriate subdivision, use and development.

19. HCC’s Environmental Sustainability Strategy (ESS) uses various terms in various contexts, including biodiversity/habitat, ecologically significant areas and natural areas.

20. The ESS Implementation Plan contains several relevant action points including:

Objective - Critical areas of the city are effectively protected and monitored and responses altered to adjust to changing risks.

BPT2 Facilitate and support community restoration projects that contribute to Council’s environmental objectives and match the aspirations of the community.

BPT3 Facilitate and encourage protection of biodiversity/habitat on private property.

Objective – Council plans for suitable connectivity of flora and fauna and community amenity.

BCC1 Develop a viable connected web of natural areas at a large scale to support typically representative species and genetic diversity over the long term.

Objective – Key biodiversity connections are identified and invested in.

BCT1 Advocate for adequate protection and funding of biodiversity locally.

21. Chapter 14E of the District Plan currently provides an objective and several policies for the protection of identified Significant Natural Resources (SNRs). The SNRs were initially associated with rules also but since December 2005, as a result of Environment Court action (W13/2003), they no longer have effect on private land.

22. The Court decision traversed a number of matters. Key findings included that significant sites must be accurately mapped at an appropriate scale and the identification of significance must be based on evidence.

23. The decision left the protection of ecosites on private land largely at the discretion of the landowners, a situation preferred by the Council of the time.

24. However, since then, Environment Court case law has developed further. In a 2014 case brought by Forest and Bird against New Plymouth DC (NZEnvC219) the Court found that reliance on community attitude to protect significant natural areas was not adequate because it did not take account of differences in community attitudes and the high vulnerability of some significant sites.

25. In its meeting minutes of 5 July 2011 (Minute No. PC110308) the Policy and Regulatory Committee noted the District Plan’s rules for significant natural resources no longer applied to private land. The minutes noted Council’s statutory obligations to protect significant natural resources and instructed officers to begin the following:

a review of the provisions for significant natural resources in the District Plan, including an assessment of other options for managing the protection of significant natural resources outside the District Plan;

District Plan Review Progress

26. In 2015 Council commissioned three key technical assessments from consultants:

· Identification of significant Coastal Natural Character Areas. This work was done jointly with Wellington City Council and Greater Wellington Regional Council and assessed the coastal environment of the entire coastline of Wellington and Hutt City Councils.

· Identification of significant Landscape Areas. This work built on an earlier regional scoping study.

· Identification of significant ecosites. This work was initiated jointly with Upper Hutt City Council using an approach developed in Kapiti District and refined to fit with the significance criteria of the Regional Policy Statement.

27. The three assessments are technical and yet to be completed. The Landscape and Ecosites assessments will require ground-truthing in consultation with affected land owners plus community and Iwi perspectives.

28. However, before engaging with landowners, officers would like to have a clear understanding of Council’s preferred approach to management of significant sites. Landowners are likely to want to know the implications of having significant sites identified on their properties so they can engage in an informed manner.

29. At a briefing held on 31 August 2016 Councillors discussed options for the management of significant sites and stakeholder engagement and instructed officers to further develop the options, including indicative costs.

30. The regulatory approach is to identify significant sites as overlays on the District Plan maps, as shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 Property with Overlays

31. The overlays would be associated with rules managing the following:

· Vegetation clearance

· Earthworks

· Buildings

· Subdivision, to avoid new building areas and driveways in sensitive areas.

32. In general, consent applications would need to be supported by ecological or landscape evidence as appropriate. Consent fees could be remitted for activities carried out in accordance with an agreed property management plan or for consents triggered solely by the overlay.

33. Vegetation clearance would require resource consent with some permitted exceptions, which could include the following:

· Maintenance of tracks and fences

· Pest control

· Enhancement works

· Utilities maintenance

· Within 10m of dwelling

· Safety threats

· Removal of dead and diseased vegetation

· Legal controls apply

· Customary practices.

34. Existing rules for earthworks may need to be strengthened, with additional discretion reserved to consider effects on significant sites, including ecological effects and the visual effects of earthworks and land stabilisation measure such as retaining walls. Resource consent is already required for most earthworks.

35. New house sites would be discouraged within ecosite overlays, with the exception of dwellings on vacant lots, where vegetation clearance of say 300m² could be enabled as a controlled activity (for which consent cannot be declined). That would provide for a building footprint of say 200m² plus some cleared area adjacent to the building.

36. New buildings such as farm buildings and structures in landscape overlays would require consent and be assessed on their merits.

37. Subdivision in overlays would be a restricted discretionary activity. No additional restrictions would apply if new lots were created outside and set back from overlays. Matters of consideration in resource consent applications would include positive and negative effects. Subdivisions create opportunities to facilitate protective legal instruments on property titles such as covenants under the Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust Act 1977 or the Reserves Act 1977 or consent notices as conditions of subdivision consent. There may be opportunities to allow subdividers to gain bonus allotments in return for strong ecological or landscape benefits.

Non-Regulatory Measures

38. This report suggests the most effective Council approach to the management of significant ecosites, landscape areas and coastal natural character areas is a whole-of-Council approach that complements the rules in the District Plan with non-regulatory measures that sit outside the District Plan. This section runs through the measures that were discussed with Councillors at the briefing of 31 August 2016 then suggests a specific package as the Council’s approach. The suggested approach has been developed in discussion with the Divisional Manager Parks and Gardens, the Divisional Manager Strategy and Planning and the Environmental Sustainability Manager.

39. While regulatory measures provide some bottom line protection of significant sites, they are unlikely to provide for the long term health of ecosites in particular. Healthy ecosites typically require stock exclusion and ongoing pest and weed management – management measures that rely on active, informed, engaged land owners. Non-regulatory measures would be aimed at making gains by including support for such private land owners.

40. The 31 August 2016 Councillor briefing discussed the following non-regulatory measures:

· Free advice and promotion of significant site protection

· Grant funding

· Free or discounted materials

· Resource consent fee remittance

· Encouraging legal protection

· Rates relief

· Council land management.

41. A free Biodiversity advisory service would be equivalent to Council’s existing EcoDesign advisory service that provides advice to homeowners on design matters such as home heating, insulation and ventilation. Biodiversity advice could include the following, on site and in the Council office:

· Promotion of indigenous biodiversity

· Ecological assessments

· Assistance in the preparation of property management plans

· Weed and pest management advice

· Advice in gaining funding

· Written guidance material

· Advice around gaining legal protection of sites

· Monitoring of the condition of significant sites.

42. The advice would increase access to information, assist in complying with regulations and encourage discussion about proposed future works and activities and how to best achieve those while protecting ecological and landscape values.

43. Property management plans can be useful to mark out the intended management of areas of a property. For example, a management plan could show existing built, productive, bush and wetland ecosite areas, describe the condition of and threats to the areas, list methods to improve the condition of the ecosite and identify future land use intentions such as the location of buildings and productive areas.

44. A management plan can provide a link between voluntary and regulatory methods with plan development and compliance opening an easier consent pathway, consent fee remission or access to funding.

45. Grant funding could be available on a contestable basis by application or prioritised to favour properties with agreed management plans.

46. Materials potentially made available could include seeds, plants, tools, traps, fencing and weed spray.

47. Resource consent fees could be remitted when the trigger for consent is solely an ecosite, landscape area or coastal natural character overlay area and/or the application includes a property management plan.

48. In cases of subdivision, financial contribution (reserves contribution) for new lots could be waived if the application includes a management plan, legal protection of significant sites or land is gifted to Council, in cases where Council may wish to acquire the land.

49. Increased legal protection via instruments on property titles may be useful. As mentioned earlier, opportunities for covenants or consent notices on title may arise at the time of land subdivision but some options can be sought voluntarily at any time. Covenants under the Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust Act 1977 are highly regarded but are generally available only to larger (40 hectare) ecosites.

50. Rates relief is a mechanism often sought by landowners in response to mandatory regulatory protection of sites and is likely to be suggested during the consultation phase of the project. The concept of the community partially compensating a private landowner for their provision of a public good is a concept Council has embraced through its policy on Notable Trees, where Council takes on the maintenance costs of privately owned Notable Trees that have been voluntarily listed in the District Plan.

51. Council currently has a rates remission policy for voluntarily protected culturally significant sites, historic buildings, structures and places, and archaeological sites. The policy is intended to support the District Plan provisions in protecting and promoting the sites.

52. To gain rates remission, landowners are required to apply annually. The policy states that Council will assess applications using the following criteria:

· The extent to which the protection and promotion of culturally significant sites, historic buildings, structures and places, and archaeological sites will be promoted by granting remission of rates on the rating unit.

· The degree to which the culturally significant sites, historic buildings, structures and places, and archaeological sites are present on the land.

· The degree to which the, culturally significant sites, historic buildings, structures and places, and archaeological sites inhibit the economic utilisation of the land.

53. Rates may be remitted on a case-by-case up to a maximum of 50% of the money spent by the landowner to protect the significant site, to a maximum of 50% of the property’s annual general rates. Remissions are for one rating year only, with applications being considered annually.

54. The concept of rates relief can be well-regarded by landowners and targeted rates relief along the lines of the existing rates remission policy has the potential to be highly effective. Significant ecosites, landscape areas and coastal natural character areas could usefully be added to the scope of the policy. Adjustment to the policy would be required in terms of whether protection is voluntary or not.

55. Council has significant reserve land holdings (2,345 hectares of natural environments), some of which are likely to be identified as significant sites. While Council policy (including Reserve Management Plans, Urban Forest Plan, Environmental Sustainability Strategy) is to show leadership in managing biodiversity and natural areas, current resourcing is short of what would be required to achieve the reserve land’s potential. A useful step forward would be to have in-house ecological expertise.

Suggested Whole-of-Council Approach

56. The District Plan regulatory measures outlined above are being developed into a plan change proposal for consultation. As noted, District Plan regulations alone are unlikely to meet Council’s aspirations for comprehensive, long term protection and enhancement of significant sites. The District Plan change process will involve significant engagement with affected landowners to ground-truth and add community and Iwi perspectives to the technical reports prepared by consultants. There will be an ongoing operational role in working with landowners to assist with and promote positive, active management of significant sites. There is also an ongoing operational role in increasing Council’s efforts in biodiversity on Council reserve land.

57. The engagement with landowners on the forthcoming District Plan proposal is currently intended to come from the existing allocation for the District Plan review. The level of that allocation is the topic of a report elsewhere in this agenda.

58. This report suggests provision is made in the 2017-2018 Annual Plan for a new role of “Biodiversity Advisor” to be created once the proposed Plan change is operative. The role would be undertaken by the Parks and Gardens Division. The role would provide input into the management of Council reserve land for biodiversity, landscape and natural character, manage the biodiversity actions of the Environmental Sustainability Strategy Implementation Plan, coordinate Council’s pest plant and wilding pine action plans, advise on ecological matters for Council-related projects (e.g. Petone 2040) and work with private landowners on the matters outlined earlier such as property management plans and access to information and funding.

59. This report suggests LTP provision is also made for materials and for physical works such as planting and pest and weed management. Provision would also be required for resource consent fee remission. Significant ecosites, landscape areas and coastal natural character areas could also be added to the scope of the rates remission policy (changes to which would require consultation using the Special Consultative Procedure).

Consultation

60. Engagement with stakeholders is discussed above.

Legal Considerations

61. Council’s statutory obligations under Section 6 of the RMA are discussed above.

Financial Considerations

62. Long Term Plan funding considerations are discussed above.

Other Considerations

63. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that it enables Council to fulfil its statutory obligations and community aspirations. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it suggests appropriate targeting of resources in the Long Term Plan.

Appendices

There are no appendices for this report.

Author: Andrew Cumming

Divisional Manager Environmental Policy

Approved By: Kim Kelly

General Manager, Strategic Services

15 20 February 2017

District Plan Committee

28 December 2016

File: (16/1441)

Report no: DPC2017/1/21

District Plan Work Programme

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to set the District Plan Work Programme and to seek an appropriate level of resourcing to implement the Work Programme.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Committee:

(i) notes the work currently being undertaken on the District Plan review;

(ii) notes the matters which will influence the review of the District Plan in the next three years including Urban Growth Strategy (UGS) initiatives, Resource Management Act (RMA) 10 year review requirements and on-going RMA reforms;

(iii) confirms the continued approach of a rolling review of the District Plan;

(iv) approves the District Plan work programme for the next three years; and

(v) recommends to the Community Plan Committee that an additional $200,000 for District Plan work is provided in the Long Term Plan for each of the next three years.

Background

1. Council is required by the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) (s73) to have a district plan and begin reviewing district plan provisions within 10 years of the provisions becoming operative (s79).

2. Council has been undertaking a rolling review of the District Plan since the Plan became operative in March 2004.

3. To date Council has processed some 40 District Plan changes on a variety of matters. Some of the changes have been driven by amended legislation, others have been driven by changing community aspirations or circumstances or the need to address known issues. Council also processes private plan change requests and notices of requirement (designations).

4. The rolling review approach continues to be appropriate as a workable response to the significant resource and time requirements of district plan reviews in a continually shifting legislative framework.

5. Major District Plan projects require extensive evidence bases to support policy approaches and must be fully consulted on with affected communities of interest. These factors have significant implications for resourcing.

6. This report presents a list and brief description of current and upcoming District Plan projects and discusses the work and resources required to progress the projects.

7. A report reviewing the Environmental Policy activity was considered by the Policy and Regulatory Committee at its meeting of 2 May 2016. The report is attached for convenience (Appendix 1). Some material from the report is repeated below.

List of District Plan Projects

8. The list of District Plan projects is presented in table format (Appendix 2). The projects are rated in terms of their strategic importance and urgency, and sized in terms of their staff and consultancy resource requirements.

9. Strategic importance derives from how a particular project fits with or implements Council’s 4 overarching strategies – Urban Growth, Environmental Sustainability, Leisure and Wellbeing, Infrastructure – and to a lesser extent other strategies including Resilience.

10. Urgency derives from timeframe pressures such as the need to respond to known issues, legislative requirements or private plan change or designation requests.

11. For example, the residential review has high strategic importance from the Urban Growth Strategy and high urgency from the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity. Plan Change 36 Notable Trees is not particularly important strategically but has had high urgency due to an amendment to the RMA that imposed new requirements and a tight timeframe.

12. This report suggests that the District Plan Work Programme should aim to prioritise the projects of highest strategic importance while also recognising that urgent projects must be attended to, particularly when the reasons for the urgency are external and beyond Council control.

Resourcing

13. The Environmental Policy Division currently comprises the Divisional Manager Environmental Policy, 2 x senior environmental policy analysts (1 position is vacant), 1 x intermediate environmental policy analyst and 1 x environmental policy analyst (graduate, 2 year contract). Extensive use is made of consultants for additional resources and specialist expertise that is not available in house.

14. Environmental Policy revenue is generally nil although the cost of processing private plan change requests can be recovered from the applicants.

15. Operating costs are essentially staff salaries, support costs (corporate overheads), specialist legal support and consultancy costs. Following the Environmental Policy activity review in 2013, Council provided funding for an additional staff member for two years and an additional $300,000 a year for two years for consultancy services. The staff position and the additional funding end at 30 June 2017.

16. The Environmental Policy Division Activity Review recommended that Council continues the service delivery approach of a core in house District Plan team with additional resources and expertise purchased from consultants as required.

17. This report suggests that achieving significant progress on the District Plan Work Programme requires additional funding of $200,000 per year for three years beginning 1 July 2017. The funding would be allocated to an appropriate mix of additional staff and consultancy resources.

Consultation

18. Consultation on District Plan projects will meet or exceed the requirements of the RMA.

Legal Considerations

19. There are no relevant legal considerations.

Financial Considerations

20. This report recommends that appropriate funding to deliver the District Plan Work Programme is provided for in the Long Term Plan for the next three years.

Other Considerations

21. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that it enables Council to deliver its strategic priorities and statutory responsibilities for the District Plan. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it targets funding in a structured approach to delivering project outcomes that are strategically important or urgent.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Policy and Regulatory Committee Report - Activity Review 12 Environmental Policy - 2 May 2016	19
2 ⇩	Draft District Plan Work Programme January 2017	27

Author: Andrew Cumming

Divisional Manager Environmental Policy

Approved By: Kim Kelly

General Manager, Strategic Services

Attachment 2

Draft District Plan Work Programme January 2017

Draft District Plan Work Programme – January 2017

	Project	Strategic? 1 low - 5 high	Main Strategic Drivers	Urgent? 1 low - 5 high	Urgency Score Reasons	Current Status	Next Steps	$ 1 low – 5 high	Staff 1 low – 5 high
	Projects Completed since 2013/14
	Plan Change 25 Introduction of a Tertiary Education Precinct					· Completed
	Plan Change 26 30 Shaftesbury Grove					· Completed
	Plan Change 27 151 Holborn Drive					· Completed
	Plan Change 29 Petone West					· Completed
	Plan Change 30 8 Harold Grove					· Completed
	Plan Change 31 33 Atiawa Crescent					· Completed
	Plan Change 32 Farmer Crescent					· Completed
	Private Plan Change 33 Winstone Aggregates		· Private plan change request			· Completed
	Plan Change 34 Network Utilities and Renewable Energy Generation		· RMA changes, National Policy			· Completed
	Plan Change 37 Hugh Sinclair Park		· Private retirement village proposal			· Completed
	Recently Completed Projects
	Private Plan Change 35 Summerset	1	· Private Plan Change Request	5	· Private Plan Change Request	· Appealed by Boulcott Preservation Society · Appeal withdrawn 24 Nov 16 · Final approval by Council 15 Dec 16 to make operative	· Completed	0	0
	Plan Change 42 Manor Park	1	· Rezoning/Road stopping	5	· Council decision	· Rezoning of stopped road · Final Council approval 22 Nov 16	· Completed	0	0
	Plan Change 44 Korimako/Pitoitoi Rd	1	· Rezoning/Road stopping	5	· Council decision	· Rezoning of stopped road · Final Council approval 22 Nov 16	· Completed	0	0
	ePlan	5	· Best Local Government Services	4	· Best Local Government Services	· Plan Browse in place · Plan Enquiry progressing · Official, legal electronic version Council 20 Sep 16	· (Almost) Completed	0	0
	Current Projects
1	Plan Change 36 Notable Trees	1	· RMA changes · 10 year review	5	· Current project · DP work programme	· Decision appealed by EHEA · Environment Court ruling on scope 10 Nov 16. Scope confined to 2 lesser matters. · EC scope decision appealed to High Court by EHEA	· High Court hearing on appeal. Likely to be March 2017 at earliest	2	1
2	Plan Change 39 Transport	4	· Urban Growth Strategy · RPS · 10 year review	5	· Current project · DP work programme	· Submissions closed 4 Nov 16 · 24 submissions	· Possible negotiations with submitters · Further submissions Jan 2017 · Hearing	3	4
3	Plan Change 38 Rezoning of former part of Avalon Park	1	· Review of Valley Floor Reserves · Urban Growth Strategy	4	· Current project	· Approved by Council 15 Dec 16 for notification	· Notify Jan 2017	2	2
4	Private Plan Change 45 Mandel Mews	1	· Private Plan Change Request	5	· Private Plan Change Request	· Private plan change 45 request lodged 28 Nov 16 · Accepted by Council 15 Dec 16	· Process application · Notify Jan 2017	1	1
5	Plan Change 43 Residential	5	· Urban Growth Strategy	5	· Current project · DP work programme	· Consultants and officers preparing plan change and updated design guide	· Community support? · Policy implications of hazard overlays · More work needed on flood overlay	5	5
6	Natural Hazards	5	· Urban Growth Strategy · Environmental Sustainability Strategy · Risk and Resilience · RMA requirements	5	· Current project · Required to inform urban growth	· Intensification in Eastbourne, Moera, Petone and Alicetown has been put on hold pending better understanding of the appropriate policy response to hazards · Riskscape modelling project underway · Flood overlays · Location of Wellington faultline	· Detailed hazard information to inform overlays in District Plan (likely to be several separate plan changes) · Community engagement	5	5
7	Ecosites and Landscapes	4	· RMA obligations · Sec6, Coastal Policy Statement, Regional Policy Statement · Undertakings to Environment Court and submitters on PC 36 Notable Trees	5	· Current project · DP work programme · Undertakings to Environment Court and submitters on PC 36 Notable Trees	· Councillor workshop held 31 Aug 16	· Resourcing extensive engagement with landowners and community · Ecologist, landscape architect · Paper to Council on policy and incentives response. Discuss with Parks and Gardens and Strategy and Planning regarding whole-of-Council response	5	5
8	Business/Industrial Land Review	5	· National Policy Statement Urban Development Capacity	5	· National Policy Statement Urban Development Capacity	· Scoping project in light of National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity, in discussion with neighbouring Councils · Links to business relocations also (Pharazyn, Cornish)	· Finalise scope, engage consultants	5	5
9	Seaview Marina	1	· Seaview Marina Board request · Recreation review	5	· Current project · DP work programme	· Reworking development concept following feedback from oil companies and marina users	· Engage with oil companies · Commission reports on hazards, visual assessment · Prepare plan change proposal for District Plan Committee consideration	2	2
10	Kelson (Major Drive)	3	· Urban Growth Strategy	4	· Current project · DP work programme	· Draft landowner development concept received 25 Jan 2017.	· Prepare plan change proposal for District Plan Committee consideration	1	1
11	Kelson (Waipounamu Rd)	3	· Urban Growth Strategy · Private plan change	4	· Awaiting landowner proposal	· Draft landowner development concept received 31 Jan 2017	· Prepare plan change proposal for District Plan Committee consideration	1	1
12	RiverLink Project Hutt River Flood Management	5	· Making Places · GW stopbank changes · Urban Growth Strategy	5	· Notice of Requirement	· Participating in design discussions · Waiting for GW notice of requirement (designation) – June 2017?	· Resourcing to process designation	3	2
13	Rezoning Mitchell Park	2	· Review of Valley Floor Reserves · Urban Growth Strategy	5	· Health sector interest · Council decision	· Plan change being prepared by consultant for handover to EP Division in Apr 17	· Prepare plan change proposal for District Plan Committee consideration	2	2
14	Rezoning part of Copeland St Reserve	1	· Review of Valley Floor Reserves · Urban Growth Strategy	4	· Council decision	· Plan change being prepared by consultant for handover to EP Division in Apr 17	· Prepare plan change proposal for District Plan Committee consideration	2	2
15	Shaftesbury Grove	3	· Urban Growth Strategy	1	· Current project · DP work programme	· Consultants preparing development proposal to be basis of plan change · On hold due to UPL selling the land	· Prepare plan change proposal for District Plan Committee consideration	2	2
16	Iwi Cultural Sites	3	· RMA requirements	1		· Waiting for Iwi to re-engage	· Engaging with Iwi	1	1
17	Recreation	3	· Leisure and Wellbeing Strategy · New World Class Community Facilities	1		· Community facilities have progressed satisfactorily via existing plan provisions · Urgency of project now perceived as reduced. Project effectively on hold due to competing priorities.	· Remain on hold	0	1
	Projects on the Radar
18	Lower Hutt CBD	3	· Urban Growth Strategy	5	· Councillor retreat outcome	· Councillors considered at November retreat	· Define project including issues needing attention · Update Making Places · Consider spatial planning approach	3	2
19	Hill Residential/ Landscape Protection	4	· Urban Growth Strategy	4	· Councillor retreat outcome	· Potentially rezone to General Residential	· Requires overlays for slope, ecosites and landscapes · Requires review of earthworks provisions	2	2
20	Earthworks	4	· Possible changes to Hill Residential and Landscape Protection	4	· Best Local Government Services	· Needs to be considered alongside possible Hill Residential or Landscape Protection zone changes		1	1
21	Miscellaneous tidy ups to address pressing consenting issues (see DOC/16/111968)	3	· Resource Consents Team · District Plan monitoring	4	· Best Local Government Services	· RC Team has long list of matters requiring attention to solve problems	· Requires several relatively minor plan changes	2	4
22	Rural (General Rural, Rural Residential)	5	· Urban Growth Strategy · National Policy Statement Urban Development Capacity	2	· Work programme		· Needs to take into account outcomes of ecosites and landscape assesssments · Requires access and infrastructure issues to be addressed
23	Residential – Petone, Alicetown, Moera, Eastbourne	5	· Urban Growth Strategy	2	· Requires natural hazards and character issues to be addressed first	· Revisit Petone, Alicetown, Moera, Eastbourne residential provisions after hazard policy response developed		5	5
24	Petone to Grenada Highway Designation	5	· NZTA Notice of Requirement	1	· Awaiting NZTA	· Waiting for NZTA Notice of Requirement (Designation). Oct 2017?	· Resourcing to process application	0	0
	Projects to Complete the District Plan Review
25	Heritage Buildings	3		2
26	Noise	3	· Update to best practice · Address known issues	3
27	Remaining Residential, (Historic, Special, Rural Residential)	3	· 10 year review · Urban Growth Strategy	2
28	Definitions	1	· 10 year review	1
29	Signs	1	· 10 year review	1
30	Community Iwi	1	· 10 year review	1
31	Hazardous Facilities	1	· 10 year review	1
32	Subdivision	1	· 10 year review	1
33	Financial Contributions	1	· 10 year review	1
34	Designations	1	· 10 year review	1
35	General (Introduction, Resource Management and the Tangata Whenua of Lower Hutt, Cross Boundary Issues Resource Consent and Notification Procedures, Monitoring and Review)	1	· 10 year review	1
	Other Environmental Policy Division Work
36	District Plan Monitoring		· RMA requirement · MfE requirement			· Developing systematic approach		0	1
37	Advocacy		· Advocacy for Council’s Interests			· Make submissions as appropriate		0	1

Environmental Sustainability Strategy Implementation Plan	Comment
TNT4: Provide for cyclists and pedestrians in land development (development proposals, subdivision plans, consent applications) by developing revised District Plan objectives, policies and rules, and design guidance (District Plan, transport chapter review).	Being addressed in PC 39 Transport
EDT1: Investigate District Plan changes with regards to energy conservation consideration.	Not a District Plan matter
EEE2: Investigate measures to encourage wind turbines.	Addressed in PC 34 Network Utilities and Renewable Energy Generation
Reviewing the District Plan to provide for and encourage residential development along key transport routes and around shopping centres (p31).	Being addressed in PC 43 Residential
LAC4: Encourage District Plan policies and rules which promote sustainable urban form within plan changes and reviews.	Being addressed in PC 43 Residential
WUE2: Investigate changes to District Plan to require water conservation measures as part of resource consent requirements.	Not a District Plan matter
RNA3: Natural Hazards - Liaise with District Plan Policy (DP) Team on the development and implementation of District Plan changes and reviews to ensure that sustainability and environmental protection measures are fully considered and included where appropriate.	To be addressed in reviews involving natural hazards. Being addressed in PC 43 Residential
RNA10: Implement Regional Hazard Management Strategy.	To be addressed in reviews involving natural hazards.
RNA12: Undertake hazards mapping and continuously update to inform risk.	To be addressed in reviews involving natural hazards.
RNA5: Work with regional partners and stakeholders to identify and mitigate risk from flooding, slips, earthquakes, and sea level rise.	To be addressed in reviews involving natural hazards.
RNA4: Update Natural Hazards section of District Plan when appropriate to mitigate risk.	To be addressed in reviews involving natural hazards.
RNC3: District Plan changes are developed and implemented as required to mitigate the effects of flooding and drought events.	Flooding to be addressed in reviews involving natural hazards. Not sure how District Plan would address drought.

36 20 February 2017

District Plan Committee

28 December 2016

File: (16/1440)

Report no: DPC2017/1/28

District Plan Update

This brief report summarises the current work being undertaken on the review of the District Plan

Recommendation

That the report be noted and received.

Proposed Plan Change 38 - Taita Drive - North of Avalon Park

1. At its meeting of 15 December 2016, Council approved Proposed Plan Change 38 Taita Drive - North of Avalon Park for public notification. The plan change is Council initiated and proposes the rezoning of land at the northern end of Avalon Park from General Recreation to General Residential to provide for residential development of the area. The plan change follows on from the reserve revocation process. The proposal was notified in the Hutt News on 24 January 2017 with submissions closing on 24 February 2017.

Proposed Private Plan Change 45 - Mandel Mews

2. A request for Proposed Private Plan Change 45 Mandel Mews was lodged on 28 November 2016 and accepted by Council on 5 December 2016. The proposal will be taken through the plan change process at the expense of the applicant. The private plan change proposes to delete site specific rules to provide for the development of a residential dwelling and to rezone another site from General Residential to General Recreation to reflect the current and future use of the site. The proposal was notified in the Hutt News on 24 January 2017 with submissions closing on 24 February 2017.

Iwi provisions/Sites of Cultural Significance to Iwi

3. Officers are looking to recommence this project in discussion with the Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust, Wellington City Council and Upper Hutt City Council.

Natural Hazards

4. Stage 2 of the natural hazards project, a Riskscape Assessment, is now underway, partnering with GNS. The Riskscape Assessment will model the damage caused by specific natural hazard events; firstly to existing buildings and secondly to hypothetical future buildings in alternative development scenarios. The Assessment will therefore help to inform planning for appropriate development. Baseline modelling was completed in January 2017. Modelling of alternative scenarios is continuing.

5. Officers are also scoping a District Plan change to identify flood hazard areas. The flood hazard areas would be shown in the District Plan maps as overlays with associated requirements such as minimum floor levels appropriate to 1 % Annual Exceedance Probability (1 in 100 year) events. This plan change is intended to address issues identified during the preparation of PC43 Residential and Mixed Use.

Greenfield Development in Kelson

6. The land at the end of Major Drive was identified as a potential greenfield development in the Urban Growth Strategy. The owners of the Major Drive Kelson property have engaged consultants to come up with a suggested concept development proposal. To realize the indicated development potential of 45 to 67 lots a plan change will be required to rezone the land from Rural Residential (2 ha per dwelling) to General Residential (400 m² per dwelling). Officers met with the landowner and consultants on 25 January 2017. A plan change proposal based on the finalised concept plan will be prepared for the consideration of the Committee.

7. Consultants for the owners of a Waipounamu Road Kelson property are preparing a private plan change request to rezone their property from Hill Residential (1000 m² per dwelling) to General Residential (400 m² per dwelling) thereby providing for up to 180 lots. The owner intends to ask Council to adopt the proposal as a Council plan change. Given that the plan change would assist Council in meeting its Urban Growth Strategy goals, officers are likely to recommend that Council agrees to the request. Officers met with the consultants on 31 January 2017. A plan change request is likely to be available for the 26 April 2017 meeting of the Committee.

Greenfield Development in Stokes Valley (Shaftesbury Grove)

8. The land at the end of Shaftesbury Grove was identified as a potential greenfield development in the UGS. Officers were working with Urban Plus Ltd and engineering, ecological and landscape consultants to achieve a suitable concept development proposal to form the basis of a plan change proposal. To realize the development potential of the site or parts of the site it would need to be rezoned from Hill Residential (1000 m² per dwelling) to General Residential (400 m² per dwelling). The work was put on hold by Urban Plus Ltd pending the possible sale of the land to a private developer.

Significant Ecosites, Landscape Areas and Coastal Natural Character Areas (Significant Natural Resources Chapter 14E)

9. A councillor workshop was held on 31 August 2016 to discuss:

· Options for managing significant ecosites and landscapes

· Stakeholder engagement strategy.

10. The workshop instructed officers to further develop the options, including indicative costs, for managing significant areas. A report is presented elsewhere in this agenda.

Proposed Plan Change 43 - Residential and Mixed Use (Urban Growth)

11. The project looks at enabling residential growth by providing for intensification and greater housing choice within the existing urban environment.

12. The project consultants are currently preparing, in discussion with officers, a draft plan change proposal including section 32 evaluation.

13. Once the draft documents are available, the Councillor Urban Growth Working Group will be reconvened. The Working Group needs to be re-established from the new Council. While membership comprises one councillor from each ward, all Councillors are welcome to attend.

14. The Working Group will be asked to review the draft documents and approve a stakeholder engagement plan based on consultation with groups such as community boards, resident and ratepayer groups, citizen’s panels/focus groups. The stakeholders will then be consulted on the approved draft plan change material.

15. The Working Group will then review the results of the consultation and amend the draft plan change as appropriate for consideration by the Committee and recommendation to Council for approval as a formal Council proposal to be taken through the statutory plan change process including full public consultation.

Private Plan Change 35 - Summerset

16. Private Plan Change 35 rezoned an area of land in Boulcott from General Recreation to General Residential with specific requirements for a retirement village. At its meeting of 15 December 2016, Council gave its final approval to Private Plan Change 35. Plan Change 35 was publicly notified on 17 January 2017 as fully operative.

17. This project has thereby been completed in regard to the District Plan. A retirement village proposal on the site would need to be advanced via a resource consent application.

Proposed Plan Change 36 - Notable Trees

18. Plan Change 36 reviews the Notable Trees Chapter as well as blanket tree and vegetation protection provisions throughout the plan. The plan change was triggered by changes to the RMA invalidating blanket tree protection provisions.

19. The Council decision on Proposed Plan Change 36 Notable Trees and Vegetation Removal was notified by Council and appealed to the Environment Court by the East Harbour Environmental Association.

20. The matter was initially set down for Court-facilitated mediation to be held on 21 September 2016. However, the appellants proposed to use the mediation to advance an agenda for additional work seen by Council as beyond the scope of the appeal. Council therefore requested adjournment of mediation and asked the Court to determine the scope of the appeal. In a joined memorandum both parties advised the court of the issues between the parties as to scope.

21. The parties then provided the Environment Court with legal submissions as to scope. An Environment Court hearing took place on 10 November 2016. The Court ruled that two of the four points of appeal, including the most significant point of appeal, were out of scope.

22. The East Harbour Environmental Association has appealed the Environment Court decision on scope to the High Court.

Proposed Plan Change 36 - Transport

23. Proposed Plan Change 36 is a complete review of the Transport Chapter 14A.

24. The proposed plan change was approved by Council on 20 September 2016 and publicly notified on 4 October 2016 for submissions.

25. Twenty four submissions were received. A Summary of Submissions was publicly notified on 17 January 2017 to provide the opportunity for further submissions.

26. Five further submissions were received.

27. Officers will review and analyse the submissions, discuss with submitters as appropriate and make arrangements for a hearing as required.

Recreation – Seaview Marina

28. Officers are continuing to develop draft plan provisions in consultation with the Seaview Marina Board and key stakeholders such as the Lowry Bay Yacht Club, the Seaview Marina Users Group and the oil companies.

29. After the preliminary round of consultation, a plan change proposal will be prepared for Council consideration.

30. Reviews of the other recreation zones have been overtaken by other priorities. Council’s aspirations for major recreation facilities have been able to be advanced under existing District Plan provisions.

Riverlink - Hutt River Flood Management

31. The project associated with upgrading the Hutt River stopbanks from Melling to Ewen Bridge is now known as Riverlink. The three major partners in the project are Hutt City Council, Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC) and NZ Transport Agency.

32. Once the preferred design elements of the project have been confirmed, each partner may issue a Notice of Requirement to designate land to be used for the project, providing the necessary authorisation under the District Plan as well as providing a framework for land acquisition process under the Public Works Act 1981. Notices of Requirement will be processed by the Environmental Policy Division.

33. Consequential changes to the District Plan may also be required to enable Council’s intentions for the riverbank promenade and associated developments.

Proposed Plan Change 42 - 38 Manor Park Road

34. Plan Change 42 proposed the zoning of stopped road as General Residential Activity Area. No submissions were received and at its meeting of 22 November 2016, Council gave final approval of Plan Change 42 Manor Park Road, making it fully operative.

35. This project has been completed.

Proposed Plan Change 44 - Korimako Road/Pitoitoi Road

36. Plan Change 44 proposed the zoning of stopped road as Hill Residential Activity Area. No submissions were received and at its meeting of 22 November 2016, Council gave final approval of Plan Change 44 Korimako Road/Pitoitoi Road, making it fully operative.

37. This project has been completed.

Resource Legislation Amendment Bill

38. The Resource Legislation Amendment Bill is currently in the Select Committee process. The Government is expecting to pass the amendments in 2017.

39. Detailed information on the Bill is available on the Ministry for the Environment website (http://www.mfe.govt.nz/rma/rma-reforms-and-amendments/about-resource-legislation-amendment-bill-2015).

40. The key matters introduced or amended by the Bill include the following:

· The preparation of National Planning Templates (district plan templates) by MfE

· Three processes for developing district plans

o The existing Schedule 1 process

o Collaborative planning process

o Streamlined process.

· Increased requirements for iwi involvement

· Managing significant risks from natural hazards included in section 6 Matters of National Importance

· New regulation making powers for the Minister

· Targeted (geographical area) national policy statements and environmental standards

· New resource consent processes for straightforward resource consent applications

· Detailed step by step public notification provisions rather than Council discretion

· Limitations on third party rights in respect of notified applications.

National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity

41. The National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity became operative on 1 December 2016. The NPS requires Council to ensure the City has development capacity for residential and business development over 3, 10 and 30 year timeframes.

42. Under the NPS Council must carry out a housing and business development capacity assessment estimating demand, development capacity and infrastructure capacity as well as monitor a range of indicators. Should the assessment indicate insufficient development capacity Council must provide further development capacity and enable development.

43. Officers are engaging with neighbouring councils, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Enterprise and Ministry for the Environment on how to comply with the requirements of the NPS.

44. The current residential review is being tailored to meet the NPS requirements. A review of industrial and business land is currently being scoped. The review is likely to be partnered with neighbouring councils and, again, will be tailored to meet the NPS requirements.

45. Detailed information on the NPS UDC is available on the Ministry for the Environment website (http://www.mfe.govt.nz/more/towns-and-cities/national-policy-statement-urban-development-capacity-0)

Appendices

There are no appendices for this report.

Author: Andrew Cumming

Divisional Manager Environmental Policy

Approved By: Kim Kelly

General Manager, Strategic Services

Cr Barry	Cr Briggs
Cr Cousins (Deputy Chair)	Cr Lewis
Cr Milne