District Plan Committee
13 September 2018
Order Paper for the meeting to be held in the
Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt,
on:
Wednesday 19 September 2018 commencing at 5.30pm
Membership
Cr L Bridson (Chair)
|
Cr C Barry |
Cr J Briggs |
|
Cr MJ Cousins (Deputy Chair) |
Cr S Edwards |
|
Cr T Lewis |
Cr C Milne |
|
|
|
For the dates and times of Council Meetings please visit www.huttcity.govt.nz
|
|
|
|
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 |
PURPOSE
To monitor the effectiveness of the City of Lower Hutt District Plan as a strategic policy and operational document for the district and facilitate consideration of Plan Changes.
To consider matters relating to quasi-judicial responsibilities of the Council under legislation. This includes matters under the RMA including district plan hearings.
Recommend
· Recommend to Council District Plan changes and District Plan variations for Council approval prior to notification.
· Recommend to Council private District Plan Change requests for Council to Accept, Adopt or Reject.
· Recommend to the relevant Requiring Authority decisions on all matters concerning Designations and Notices of Requirements in accordance with Part 8 of the Resource Management Act 1991.
· Recommend to Council for final approval, to make operative, District Plan and District Plan Changes (in accordance with clause 17, Part 1, Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991).
Determine
· Determine all other matters (including decisions requested by submitters) concerning the District Plan and District Plan changes (in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991).¨
· Exercise the power of waiver of the requirement to provide parties with copies of written reports prior to hearings (under Section 42A (4) of the Resource Management Act 1991).
· Appoint a subcommittee or hearing panel of suitably qualified person(s) to conduct statutory hearings on behalf of the Committee. The Chair of the District Plan Committee is also delegated this function.
General
· Set the District Plan Work Programme and monitor its implementation.
· Develop and review appropriate strategies and policies in relation to the District Plan.
· Approve and forward submissions to other authorities on matters relevant to the Committee’s area of responsibility.
· Monitor the effectiveness of the District Plan and consider issues raised with the committee.
NOTE:
The Ministry for the Environment advocates that Councils offer specialist RMA training in areas of law which are difficult to grasp or where mistakes are commonly made. This is to complement the Making Good Decisions RMA training that MfE runs (which is an overview and basic summary of decision making, rather than an in-depth training in specific areas of the RMA). Therefore in order to facilitate this, the RMA training run for councillors that wish to be hearings commissioners is mandatory.
Reasons for the importance of the training:
1 Hearings commissioners are kept abreast of developments in the legislation.
2 Legal and technical errors that have been made previously are avoided (many of which have resulted in Environment Court action which is costly, time consuming and often creates unrealistic expectations for the community).
3 The reputation of Council as good and fair decision makers or judges (rather than legislators) is upheld.
5
HUTT CITY COUNCIL
District Plan Committee
Meeting to be held in the Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt on
Wednesday 19 September 2018 commencing at 5.30pm.
ORDER PAPER
Public Business
OPENING FORMALITIES - Karakia Timatanga
|
Whakataka te hau ki te uru Whakataka te hau ki te tonga Kia mākinakina ki uta Kia mātaratara ki tai E hī ake ana te atakura He tio, he huka, he hau hū Tīhei mauri ora. |
Cease the
winds from the west |
1. APOLOGIES
Mayor Wallace
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
Generally up to 30 minutes is set aside for public comment (three minutes per speaker on items appearing on the agenda). Speakers may be asked questions on the matters they raise.
3. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS
4. Recommendation to Council - 9 October 2018
Proposed District Plan Change 52: Alignment of District Plan with New Zealand Heritage List (18/1429)
Report No. DPC2018/4/221 by the Intermediate Environmental Policy Analyst 9
Chair’s Recommendation:
|
"That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.” |
5. Information Item
District Plan Update (18/1395)
Report No. DPC2018/4/123 by the Divisional Manager District Plan 148
Chair’s Recommendation:
|
"That the recommendation contained in the report be endorsed.” |
6. QUESTIONS
With reference to section 32 of Standing Orders, before putting a question a member shall endeavour to obtain the information. Questions shall be concise and in writing and handed to the Chair prior to the commencement of the meeting.
CLOSING FORMALITIES - Karakia Whakamutunga
|
Kia hora te marino Kia whakapapa pounamu te moana He huarahi mā tātou i te rangi nei Aroha atu, aroha mai Tātou i a tātou katoa Hui e Tāiki e! |
May peace be wide spread May the sea be like greenstone A pathway for us all this day Let us show respect for each other For one another Bind us together! |
Susan Haniel
Committee Advisor
13 19 September 2018
29 August 2018
File: (18/1429)
Report no: DPC2018/4/221
Proposed District Plan Change 52: Alignment of District Plan with New Zealand Heritage List
Purpose of Report
1. To present the draft of Proposed District Plan Change 52: Alignment of District Plan with New Zealand Heritage List to the Committee for consideration and approval.
|
Recommendations That the Committee recommends that Council: (i) notes the Proposed Plan Change, which is attached as Appendix 1 to this report; (ii) resolves to promulgate the Proposed Plan Change for consultation; (iii) instructs officers to publicly notify the Proposed Plan Change as soon as practicable; and (iv) allows officers to make any non-policy related changes to the details of the Proposed Plan Change, should the need arise. |
Background
2. The purpose of the Proposed Plan Change is to amend Appendix Heritage 1 of the District Plan to ensure that all historic places in Lower Hutt that are listed in or being processed for listing in the New Zealand Heritage List are also listed by the District Plan.
3. Appendix Heritage 1 would be amended as follows:
a. Nash House (14 St Albans Grove, Woburn) would be added;
b. The former Lower Hutt Central Fire Station (155-157 Waterloo Road, Hutt Central) would be added;
c. The former Naenae Post Office (27 Hillary Court, Naenae) would be added;
d. The ANZAC Memorial Flag Pole (Hutt Road, Petone) and the former Petone Magistrate’s Court (13 Elizabeth Street Petone) would be moved from Appendix Heritage 2 to Appendix Heritage 1;
e. Dudley Cottage (Seaview Road, Petone), which no longer exists, would be removed.
4. The Proposed Plan Change would also:
a. Update obsolete terms that are used in Chapter 14F Heritage Buildings and Structures but should no longer be used as a result of legislative changes (New Zealand Historic Places Trust, Historic Places Act 1993 and HPT Register);
b. Amend the District Plan maps to reflect the amendments to Appendix Heritage 1.
5. The Proposed Plan Change does not make any other changes to Chapter 14F Heritage Buildings and Structures. Any submissions that sought changes would be considered out of scope.
6. Under section 86B(3) of the Resource Management Act, a rule in a proposed plan that protects historic heritage has immediate legal effect on notification.
Discussion
7. The District Plan includes two lists of heritage features:
a. Appendix Heritage 1, which lists buildings, structures and places that have been identified in the New Zealand Heritage List (NZHL) for their historical or cultural significance or value; and
b. Appendix Heritage 2, which lists buildings and structures that haven’t been identified in the NZHL, but have been identified by the Council as making a notable contribution to local heritage.
8. The NZHL is a tool for identifying historic places (including buildings and structures) that have historical or cultural significance or value. The effects of land use and development on the historical and cultural values of a historic place are not addressed by the NZHL, that is, the NZHL provides no legal protection of buildings and structures. Legal protection is conferred through listing buildings and structures in the District Plan, so that the effects of land use and development on heritage values can be managed.
9. Since Appendix Heritage 1 was last updated in 2007, Nash House (14 St Albans Grove, Woburn) and the former Lower Hutt Central Fire Station (155-157 Waterloo Road, Hutt Central) have been added to the NZHL. In addition, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT) has received a nomination for the former Naenae Post Office to be added to the NZHL. HNZPT have stated that the former Post Office is a good candidate for entry on the NZHL and that the nomination is in their files as a high priority consideration for July 2019-June 2020.
10. As a result of these additions to the NZHL (and the anticipated addition of the former Naenae Post Office), there are historic places that have been identified for their historical or cultural significance or value that have not been recognised in the District Plan. Without being recognised in the District Plan, there is no protection of their historic heritage values from land use and development. There is a risk that the historic heritage values will be affected by alterations to the buildings. There is also the risk that the buildings will be demolished and the historic heritage values will be lost.
11. Under Section 6 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use and development is a matter of national importance that the Council must recognise and provide for.
12. By adding these buildings to Appendix Heritage 1 of the District Plan, the effects on the historic heritage values of these buildings from land use and development would be protected through the existing objectives, policies and rules of the District Plan.
13. The Proposed Plan Change proposes two other amendments to Appendix Heritage 1.
a. The ANZAC Memorial Flagpole and the Petone Magistrate’s Court, which are currently identified in Appendix Heritage 2, would be moved to Appendix Heritage 1. The flagpole and the Court were added to the NZHL in 2011. However, as they are already listed in Appendix Heritage 2, they are protected through the existing objectives, policies and rules of the District Plan. The Proposed Plan Change would move the flagpole and Court to Appendix Heritage 1 so all buildings and structures in the NZHL would be listed in the same Appendix.
b. Dudley Cottage, which was once listed in the NZHL, burnt down in 2008. As a result, it was removed from the NZHL. As the building no longer exists, it should be removed from Appendix Heritage 1.
Options
14. The proposal’s Section 32 Evaluation discusses three options for the update to the list of heritage features in the District Plan:
a. Retain the status quo;
b. Update the list of heritage features to ensure the District Plan lists heritage buildings and features that are identified in the New Zealand Heritage List, as well as the former Naenae Post Office building, which is expected to be added to the list in 2019/2020; and
c. A full review of the provisions of the District Plan that address effects of land use and development on historic heritage values.
15. Option a. may not enable Council to meet its statutory obligations. Option c. would mean legal protection would arise at a later date due to the complexity and likely extended timeframe of the review, leaving the buildings and structures vulnerable to damage or demolition in the meantime.
16. This report recommends Option b. so that legal protection is afforded to the buildings and structures by the District Plan as soon as practicable.
17. A more detailed evaluation of the options is available in the section 32 evaluation that forms part of the plan change proposal.
Consultation
18. Consultation has been carried out with the following statutory authorities in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA):
· Ministry for the Environment;
· Greater Wellington Regional Council;
· Upper Hutt City Council;
· Porirua City Council;
· Wellington City Council;
· South Wairarapa District Council;
· Wellington Tenths Trust;
· Te Runanga o Toa Rangatira Inc;
· Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust;
· Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga.
19. No feedback has been received.
20. Council staff will consult with the owners of the heritage buildings proposed to be newly added to the District Plan. All owners of affected buildings and structures will be directly notified of the Proposed Plan Change, and will be given the opportunity to submit on the Proposed Plan Change through the plan change process.
Legal Considerations
21. All requirements under the RMA will be followed.
Financial Considerations
22. There are no financial considerations for the Council.
Other Considerations
23. 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 local government in that to Proposed Plan Change is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it follows the statutory process outlined in the RMA and ensures that the District Plan addresses the potential effects on heritage features that have been identified in the New Zealand Heritage List as having historical and/or cultural significance or value.
|
No. |
Title |
Page |
|
1⇩ |
PC 52 - Draft Proposed Plan Change for Notification incl. Appendices |
14 |
Author: Nathan Geard
Intermediate Environmental Policy Analyst
Reviewed By: Andrew Cumming
Divisional Manager District Plan
Approved By: Kim Kelly
General Manager, City Transformation
154 19 September 2018
21 August 2018
File: (18/1395)
Report no: DPC2018/4/123
District Plan Update
1. This brief report summarises the current work being undertaken on the review of the District Plan.
|
That the report be noted and received.
|
Proposed Plan Change 49: Copeland St Reserve
2. Proposed Plan Change 49 Copeland St Reserve seeks to rezone the western part of the Copeland Street Reserve from General Recreation Activity Area to General Residential Activity Area. The proposed Plan Change also seeks to rezone two properties at 51 and 53 Hall Street from General Residential to General Recreation Activity Area.
3. The proposed Plan Change was publicly notified on 29 August 2017 and overall six submissions were received.
4. A hearing was held before independent Commissioner Gina Sweetman on 2 February 2018. The decision was released on 18 March 2018 and publicly notified on 27 March 2018 to begin the appeal phase.
5. Appeals to the Environment Court closed on 11 May 2018. No appeals were lodged.
6. The Plan Change was confirmed by Council at its meeting of 22 May 2018 and became fully operative on 6 June 2018.
Iwi provisions/Sites of Cultural Significance to Iwi
7. Discussions on advancing this project are underway with Ngati Toa, Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust, Wellington City Council, Porirua City Council and Upper Hutt City Council.
Natural Hazards
8. 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.
9. Officers are also scoping District Plan changes to appropriately address the risk of natural hazards. Officers are discussing opportunities for collaboration with Porirua City Council and Upper Hutt City Council. The first collaboration is updating provisions dealing with earthquake faultlines. GNS has been engaged.
10. GNS’s initial report-back was provided in a Councillor workshop held 23 August 2018. Following the workshop, a communications and engagement plan is being developed for consultation prior to a formal District Plan change.
11. Staff have also begun scoping the more accurate identification of areas subject to landslide risk.
Greenfield Development in Kelson
12. The land at the northern end of Major Drive was identified as a potential greenfield development in the Urban Growth Strategy. To realise its development potential a plan change will be required to rezone the land from Rural Residential (2 ha per dwelling). Officers have had several meetings with the landowners and their consultants to discuss development options. The property recently changed hands. Officers have engaged with consultants acting for the new owners and were expecting information from them to support a plan change.
13. The consultants have now advised that the property owners wish to advance the project by way of a private plan change request. Once received, a private plan change request would be presented to the Committee and Council for a decision on whether to accept or adopt the proposal.
Greenfield Development in Stokes Valley (Shaftesbury Grove)
14. The land at the end of Shaftesbury Grove was identified as a potential greenfield development in the UGS.
15. Officers are in contact with consultants acting for the property owners and are expecting information from them to support a plan change.
16. Once suitable information is available, a plan change proposal will be prepared for the consideration of the Committee.
Proposed Plan Change 46 – Ecology and Landscapes
17. Staff are continuing to work with individual landowners and groups who wish to engage constructively.
18. All options for enabling Council to meet its statutory obligations are being explored.
19. A draft district plan change and the detail of associated non-regulatory support measures are being developed for consideration by the Committee and Council.
Proposed Plan Change 43 - Residential and Suburban Mixed Use
20. Proposed Plan Change 43 is intended to enable residential growth by providing for intensification and greater housing choice within the existing urban environment.
21. Proposed Plan Change 43 was approved for notification by Council on 10 October 2017 and publicly notified on 7 November 2017 for an extended submission period of four months.
22. All affected owners and occupiers in Residential, Suburban Commercial and Business areas were directly notified by letter. Almost 40,000 letters were posted.
23. During the submission period, staff ran 14 information drop in sessions, each 4 hours in duration. Of those 14 sessions six were evening sessions and two were held in on a Saturday. Twelve of the sessions were held in Lower Hutt (at the Council administration building and the Dowse), one session was held in Naenae and another in Wainuiomata. The total number of participants was about 200.
24. In response to requests, two separate briefings were held with local architects and consultants. Additional meetings were held with residents who made personal visits to the administration centre to ask questions.
25. Well over 100 telephone calls were received by the District Plan team, plus additional calls handled by the contact centre.
26. Submissions closed on 9 March 2018. The proposal received 260 submissions.
27. The summary of decisions requested (summary of submissions) was notified publicly and to all submitters on 24 July 2018. Any person with an interest greater than the public generally or representing a relevant aspect of the public interest then had the opportunity to lodge a further submission in support of or opposition to an initial submission. Further submissions closed on 21 August 2018 except for those on an incorrectly summarised submission (closing 4 September 2018) and from one particular submitter whose notification was misaddressed (closing 7 September 2018).
28. The next phase of the process is to prepare the staff report recommending decisions on submissions and to set a hearing date for later this calendar year. All submitters will have the opportunity to speak to and present evidence in support of their submission.
Proposed Plan Change 36 - Notable Trees
29. 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.
30. The Council decision on Proposed Plan Change 36 Notable Trees and Vegetation Removal was appealed to the Environment Court by the East Harbour Environmental Association (EHEA) in July 2016.
31. An Environment Court hearing took place on 10 November 2016. In response to Council’s challenge to the scope of the appeal, the Court ruled that two of the four points of appeal, including the most significant point of appeal, were out of scope.
32. The EHEA then appealed the Environment Court decision on scope to the High Court. In July 2017 the High Court ruled against the EHEA, upholding the Environment Court decision on scope. The High Court decision indicated that a costs award against EHEA would be appropriate. A costs settlement with EHEA has been reached.
33. EHEA indicated it intended to pursue the remaining two points of appeal by way of mediation. After not seeing any progress from EHEA on the matter, Council wrote to the Environment Court asking that a hearing be scheduled.
34. The Court responded by calling a judicial conference in February 2018, in which it sought clarification from EHEA on what it was seeking and what expert evidence it intended to call in support of its case. The Court then issued directions and a timetable for exchange of evidence.
35. The EHEA evidence was filed with the Court on 1 March 2018. Council’s evidence was filed on 6 April 2018. EHEA evidence in response was required by 13 April 2018.
36. The Environment Court hearing began on 24 May 2018. The hearing was adjourned so that legal submissions could be provided to the Court to deal (via section 293 of the RMA) with an issue it identified with the District Plan, i.e. that the catch-all rule in residential zones gave unlisted activities non-complying activity status.
37. A joint memorandum and affidavits from Council staff were sent to the Court on the due date of 15 June. The Court will advise when the hearing will be reconvened.
Seaview Marina
38. 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.
39. A natural hazards assessment and a visual assessment have now been received.
40. Staff are considering how the Marina is able to be accommodated in the format and zone structure proposed in the draft NZ Planning Standards.
41. A plan change proposal will be presented to the Committee for consideration in due course.
Riverlink - Hutt River Flood Management
42. 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 and NZ Transport Agency.
43. 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 District Plan Division.
44. Consequential changes to the District Plan may also be required to enable Council’s intentions for the riverbank promenade and associated developments.
National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity
45. 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.
46. 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.
47. Council’s obligation to monitor and report on a range of indicators commenced on 1 July 2017. Officers are preparing a web page to present the indicators and link to relevant information such as the NPS and Council implementation projects including residential intensification and greenfield development.
48. 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. Wellington City Council is leading a joint project to develop an appropriate model and methodology for implementation.
49. The modelling work is ongoing.
National Planning Standards
50. The Ministry for the Environment is developing National Planning Standards to standardise much of the content and appearance of district plans throughout the country. The first suite of draft standards is due to be released by July 2018 for feedback followed by formal gazetting in April 2019.
51. The first suite of standards is expected to include district plan structure and format including chapter and rule formats, zones and overlays and defined terms.
52. The standards will have sweeping implications for the District Plan, including that the standards would be impracticable to implement via a rolling review process and would require a full Plan review.
53. Staff provided comments to MfE on the draft National Planning Standards by the due date of 17 August 2018.
Notice of Requirement from NZ Transport Agency for an upgrade to State Highway 58
54. Designation TNZ4 is an existing designation of the District Plan that authorises an upgrade to State Highway 58. However, the designation authorises the upgrade to a specific design (for a four-lane highway).
55. The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) has amended the design for the upgrade. The amended design retains the existing two-lane highway, but realigns the carriageway and adds a median barrier. The amended design would result in a reduction in the volume of earthworks, area of vegetation clearance, and height of cuts in the hillside that are required to undertake the upgrade.
56. As NZTA needed to alter the design, they needed to notify Council of the requirement to alter the designation. This notification was received by Council on 11 June 2018.
57. Staff assessed the proposed alteration to the designation and determined that the alteration to the designation did not need to be publicly notified and that there are no affected persons in relation to the alteration. On 13 July 2018, staff acting under delegated authority issued a recommendation that NZTA should confirm its requirement, subject to conditions.
58. Under s172 of the RMA, NZTA initially had 30 working days to advise the Council whether it accepts or rejects the recommendation in whole or in part. However, NZTA has requested an extension of that timeframe to allow it to further consider the conditions in that recommendation. The time extension has been approved under s37 of the RMA.
There are no appendices for this report.
Author: Andrew Cumming
Divisional Manager District Plan
Approved By: Kim Kelly
