District Plan Committee
Minutes of a meeting
held in the Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road,
Lower Hutt on
Wednesday 19 September 2018 commencing at 5.30pm
PRESENT: Cr L Bridson (Chair) Cr MJ Cousins
Cr C Barry Cr J Briggs
Cr T Lewis Cr C Milne (from 5.35pm)
APOLOGIES: Apologies were received from Mayor Wallace and Cr Edwards. An apology for lateness was received from Cr Milne.
IN ATTENDANCE: Mr T Stallinger, Chief Executive
Ms K Kelly, General Manager, City Transformation
Ms C Tessendorf, Senior Environmental Policy Analyst
Mr J Jeffries, Environmental Policy Analyst
Mr J Hoyle, Communications and Marketing Advisor
Ms S Haniel, Committee Advisor
RESOLVED: (Cr Bridson/Cr Briggs) Minute No. DPC 18401
“That the apologies received from Mayor Wallace and Cr Edwards, and the apology received from Cr Milne for lateness be accepted and leave of absence be granted.”
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
Cr Milne joined the meeting at 5.35pm.
Public comments are recorded under the item to which they relate.
3. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS
There were no conflict of interest declarations.
4. Recommendation to Council - 9 October 2018
The Senior Environmental Policy Analyst elaborated on the report.
In response to questions from members, the Senior Environmental Policy Analyst said that in the event that the Naenae clock tower was not identified on the New Zealand Heritage List, the building could be listed in Appendix Heritage 2 of the District Plan. She further said that the owners of the Naenae clock tower had been informed about Proposed Plan Change 52 (PPC52) one week ago.
Cr Milne said that Council should be giving property owners the maximum amount of notice as possible that their properties were under consideration for heritage listing, and that one week’s notice was not enough time for them to obtain legal advice.
Cr Cousins said that a report on Council’s Heritage Policy would be going to the Policy and Regulatory Committee for its first consideration next week.
Cr Lewis agreed with Cr Milne that the owner of the Naenae clock tower had been given short notice of PPC52. Heritage issues were sensitive and Council needed to give good publicity and notice of the plan change.
The Chair said that the owners of the property had been informed early in the process, which was a week before Council would start talking about PPC52. Officers were required to balance how much time people had uncertainty about their properties, versus having enough time to obtain advice about the matter. A positive effect of having buildings listed as heritage buildings, was that owners would be able to access Council’s heritage fund for building repairs and improvements.
RECOMMENDED: (Cr Bridson/Cr Lewis) Minute No. DPC 18402
“That the Committee recommends that Council:
(i) notes the Proposed Plan Change attached as Appendix 1 to the 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.”
5. Information Item
Report No. DPC2018/4/123 by the Divisional Manager District Plan
Speaking under public comment, Mr David Innes said that he did not support Council’s proposed identification and analysis of Significant Natural Areas (SNAs). This was the fourth time he had put up a defence for the land in Moores Valley, and Council was ignoring a 630 pageTonkin and Taylor report previously written about the matter. He said that conservation required ongoing maintenace and it was not sufficient to reserve land and wait for reversion to biological diversity. Land affected by the SNA proposal included 20,000 hectares of publically owned land and 8,000 hectares of privately owned land.
In response to questions from members, Mr Innes said that officers had written to him about how “significance” was determined. However, he had not spoken to officers about the quality of the vegetation on his property.
The Environmental Policy Analyst said that the definition of “significance” was set out in the Regional Policy Statement (RPS). The RPS has been interpreted and a full report on the matter was available on the Council website. When contacted by land owners, officers gave them information pertaining to their site and were continuing to carry out site visits as required.
Cr Milne asked officers to circulate the information on significance, noting that Mr Innes was unclear about why the vegetation on his site was significant.
The Chair encouraged Mr Innes to talk to the officers about the matter, and clarified that there was a difference between ecology policy and a District Plan change. She further said that when a plan change was proposed, he would have a greater opportunity to speak to his submission.
The Divisional Manager District Plan elaborated on the report.
Cr Cousins expressed concern that the upgrade to State Highway 58 no longer proposed a four-lane highway, and only proposed a two-lane highway. The speed limit for SH58 had been dropped to 80 kmh and Transmission Gully would be a major link road to the City. She considered that the two-lane proposal was not in the long term interests of growth and development for Hutt City.
Cr Milne agreed with Cr Cousins. He did not recall Council have a discussion and putting a submission to the New Zealand Transport Agency about the proposal for SH52. Heavy traffic used the road and the speed limit on it was an important factor.
Resolved: (Cr Bridson/Cr Cousins) Minute No. DPC 18403
“That the report be noted and received.”
There were no questions.
Cr L Bridson
CONFIRMED as a true and correct record
Dated this 9th day of October 2018