District Plan Committee
23 November 2018
Order Paper for the meeting to be held in the
Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt,
on:
Thursday 29 November 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.
HUTT CITY COUNCIL
District Plan Committee
Meeting to be held in the Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt on
Thursday 29 November 2018 commencing at 5.30pm.
ORDER PAPER
Public Business
OPENING FORMALITIES - Karakia Timatanga (18/1825)
|
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
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 - 29 November 2018
Proposed District Plan Change 46 Significant Natural Areas, Outstanding Natural Landscapes, Outstanding Natural Features and Coastal Natural Character (18/1800)
Report No. DPC2018/5/333 by the Divisional Manager District Plan 7
Chair’s Recommendation:
|
“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.” |
5. Information Item
District Plan Update (18/1661)
Report No. DPC2018/5/151 by the Divisional Manager District Plan 268
Chair’s Recommendation:
|
“That the information be received.” |
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 (18/1826)
|
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! |
Donna Male
COMMITTEE ADVISOR
12 29 November 2018
13 November 2018
File: (18/1800)
Report no: DPC2018/5/333
Proposed District Plan Change 46 Significant Natural Areas, Outstanding Natural Landscapes, Outstanding Natural Features and Coastal Natural Character
Purpose of Report
1. To present the draft of Proposed District Plan Change 46 Significant Natural Areas, Outstanding Natural Landscapes, Outstanding Natural Features and Coastal Natural Character for consideration and approval and to present complementary non-regulatory support measures for consideration and recommendation to the Community Plan Committee.
|
Recommendations That the Committee: (i) recommends that Council: (a) notes the Proposed Plan Change, attached as Appendix 1 to the report; (b) resolves to promulgate the Proposed Plan Change for consultation; (c) instructs officers to publicly notify the Proposed Plan Change for the submission period of 1 December 2018 until 1 March 2019; and (d) allows officers to make any non-policy related changes to the details of the Proposed Plan Change, should the need arise; and (ii) recommends that the Community Plan Committee: (a) notes the report “Non-regulatory Support Measures for Indigenous Biodiversity on Private Land,” attached as Appendix 2 to the report; (b) supports the funding of the following non-regulatory support measures that are complementary to Proposed Plan Change 46 as follows:
|
Background
2. The purpose of Proposed Plan Change 46 is to fulfil Council’s statutory obligations under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS) and the Regional Policy Statement for the Wellington Region 2013 (RPS).
3. Under these legislations and policies Council has an obligation to identify protect and preserve areas of significant biodiversity, outstanding natural features and landscapes and the natural character of the coastal environment.
4. A full discussion of Council’s obligations is set out in the legal advice of DLA Piper, which is included in the Proposed Plan Change attached as Appendix 1.
5. The Proposed Plan Change would identify in the Planning Maps:
· Significant Natural Areas;
· Outstanding Natural Landscapes;
· Outstanding Natural Features; and
· High and Outstanding Coastal Natural Character Areas.
6. The Proposed Plan Change would introduce objectives, policies and rules to manage the identified areas in accordance with the requirements of the RMA, the NZCPS and RPS.
7. The regulatory measures of the Proposed Plan Change are complemented by the support measures recommended in the report “Non-regulatory Support Measures for Indigenous Biodiversity on Private Land,” which is attached as Appendix 2.
Discussion
8. Proposed Plan Change 46 introduces three new chapters to the District Plan:
· Chapter 14M: Significant Natural Areas;
· Chapter 14N: Outstanding Natural Landscapes and Outstanding Natural Features;
· Chapter 14O: Coastal Natural Character Areas.
9. In addition, to address the potential effects of subdivision on the identified areas, the Proposed Plan Change introduces new provisions to existing Chapter 11: Subdivision.
10. There are also consequential changes to:
· Chapter 1 Introduction and Scope of the Plan
· Chapter 3 Definitions
· Chapter 8B General Rural Activity Area
· Chapter 13 Network Utilities
· Chapter 14 General Rules
· Chapter 14E Significant Natural, Cultural & Archaeological Resources
11. The Proposed Plan Change does not alter any of the provisions of the underlying zoning of the identified areas. That is, for example, a property zoned General Rural Activity Area with an SNA overlay will be subject to the provisions of the SNA overlay, the provisions of the General Rural Activity Area and the district-wide provisions.
12. Section 32 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) requires that an evaluation report be prepared before the notification of a plan change by Council. The overarching purpose of section 32 of the RMA is to ensure that any proposed district plan provisions are robust, evidence-based and the best means to achieve the purpose of the Act. To that end, Council is required to undertake an evaluation of any proposed district plan provisions before notifying those provisions. The Section 32 Evaluation Report provides the reasoning and rationale for the proposed provisions and should be read in conjunction with those provisions. It is included in the Proposed Plan Change document which is attached as Appendix 1 to this report.
13. Due to the complexity of the proposal the proposed submission phase is extended from four weeks to 12 weeks.
Options
14. In preparing the proposed Plan Change the following six alternative approaches to addressing the issues of loss and modification of SNAs, landscape areas and features and coastal natural character have been considered:
· Approach A is the Do Nothing option of leaving the District Plan as it is (except for minor updating of references and standards).
· Approach B is Identify and Protect Via Mapping Overlays and Targeted Rules in the District Plan – for Public Land Only. This approach relies solely on the public landholdings of Hutt City Council, Greater Wellington Regional Council and Department of Conservation to protect significant sites.
· Approach C is No Mapping Overlays, Generic Vegetation Removal Rules in the District Plan. This approach sets blanket vegetation removal rules that apply to all properties and relies on the resource consent process to identify and appropriately address significant areas.
· Approach D is Non-Regulatory Measures. This approach avoids District Plan provisions and relies solely on the voluntary efforts of landowners.
· Approach E is Identify and Protect Via Mapping Overlays and Targeted Rules in the District Plan. This approach maps Significant Natural Areas, Outstanding Natural Landscapes, Outstanding Natural Features and High and Outstanding Coastal Natural Character Areas and introduces objectives, policies and rules into the District Plan to comply with the requirements of the RMA, NZCPS and RPS.
· Approach F is Identify and Protect Via Mapping Overlays and Targeted Rules in the District Plan Plus Non-Regulatory Support Measures. This approach introduces mapping and regulations into the District Plan plus undertaking more work on Council-owned land and providing assistance and incentives to private land owners to complement the District Plan regulations.
15. The six options have been evaluated and Approach F is considered to be the most appropriate option for fulfilling Council’s obligations and achieving the sustainable management purpose of the RMA. A more detailed discussion can be found in the Section 32 evaluation which is included in the Proposed Plan Change attached as Appendix 1.
Consultation
16. Initial Consultation has been undertaken with affected land owners. The initial consultation advised landowners of the draft identified areas and values and invited feedback on the areas and on possible District Plan provisions and non-regulatory support measures. After an initial letter in January 2018 three more updates were sent to affected landowners, drop-in sessions were held and one-on-one meetings and site visits are ongoing.
17. A community survey was conducted in September 2018 via the Hutt City Views panel to canvas general community attitudes to native bush and willingness to pay for its protection. The results and related contingent valuation show the community values native bush highly and has a high level of willingness to pay for its protection and enhancement.
18. Initial consultation has been undertaken with Mana Whenua.
19. Consultation has been initiated with statutory authorities in accordance with Schedule 1 of the RMA.
20. Full public consultation on the Proposed Plan Change with extended time frames will be undertaken under the provisions of Schedule 1 of the RMA if the Proposed Plan Change is promulgated.
21. Feedback has been documented in the s32 report and incorporated into the Proposed Plan Change as appropriate.
Non-regulatory Support Measures for Indigenous Biodiversity on Private Land
22. The report “Non-regulatory Support Measures for Indigenous Biodiversity on Private Land” (Attachment 2) discusses and quantifies the possible cost of applying various measures to support private landowners. The report recommends the support measures in the table below.
|
Support Measure |
Annual Budget (additional to existing) |
|
Information and Advice |
$10,000 |
|
Rates rebates for land protected in perpetuity by legal instrument on Record of Title |
$10,000 |
|
Land use consent assistance including ecological assessments and consent fee remission |
$120,000 |
|
SNA Grants 1 (small grants for traps, sprays, trees) |
$25,000 |
|
SNA Grants 2 (large grants for covenants, ecological assessments, management plans) |
$80,000 |
|
Total |
$245,000 |
23. The report recommends that the support measures preferred by Council should be consulted on informally with SNA landowners then more formally with landowners and the wider community.
Legal Considerations
24. All requirements under the RMA will be followed.
Financial Considerations
25. The recommended non-regulatory support measures have significant financial implications and need to be considered by the Community Plan Committee.
Other Considerations
26. 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 the 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 enables Council to meet its statutory obligations.
|
No. |
Title |
Page |
|
1⇩ |
PC 46 - Proposed Plan Change Document - Final for DPC Agenda incl Sec32 (Attachments under separate cover - http://iportal.huttcity.govt.nz/Record/ReadOnly?Tab=31&Uri=5094638) |
13 |
|
2⇩ |
Non-Regulatory Support Measures for Indigenous Biodiversity on Private Land |
261 |
Author: Andrew Cumming
Divisional Manager District Plan
Approved By: Kim Kelly
General Manager, City Transformation
|
Attachment 1 |
PC 46 - Proposed Plan Change Document - Final for DPC Agenda incl Sec32 (Attachments under separate cover - http://iportal.huttcity.govt.nz/Record/ReadOnly?Tab=31&Uri=5094638) |
|
Non-Regulatory Support Measures for Indigenous Biodiversity on Private Land |
|
File number: |
|
|
Report number: |
|
INDIGENOUS BIODIVERSITY ON PRIVATE LAND –
NON-REGULATORY SUPPORT MEASURES FOR LAND OWNERS
1. Purpose of Report
The purpose of this report is to recommend non-regulatory measures that will assist landowners engage with and support the management of indigenous biodiversity on private property in Lower Hutt.
The report identifies and evaluates the main options and recommends a range of preferred measures.
2. Recommendations
This report recommends a range of non-regulatory support measures to complement the land use management provisions of the District Plan. The measures would be available to qualifying landowners and would include the following:
1. Free professional advice and information.
2. Rates rebates for land protected in perpetuity by legal instrument, such as covenant, on Record of Title.
3. Land use resource consent fee remission and assistance with ecological assessments and consent applications.
4. Small grants fund.
5. Large grants fund.
Work on the qualifying criteria and assessment methods, as well as a mechanism to administer and monitor the measures, will need to be done before the measures are made available.
It is further recommended that Council considers that the cost of this package is an addition to Council’s annual expenditure budget. Rates rebates, if included, would be a reduction to Council’s rates and fees revenue.
3. Background
According to the Ministry for the Environment’s Our Land 2018, New Zealand’s indigenous biodiversity and ecosystems continue to be under threat.
Council is working on a District Plan proposal to identify and protect Significant Natural Areas in Lower Hutt in accordance with Council’s obligations under the Resource Management Act and the Regional Policy Statement for the Wellington Region. The clearance of vegetation in SNAs is likely to require resource consent so that the effects on indigenous biodiversity can be assessed and mitigated on a case by case basis.
Council has signalled to affected landowners that the land use management provisions of the District Plan will be complemented by measures to assist landowners in their active management of SNAs.
Other Councils have reported a good level of engagement when non-regulatory measures are available, especially when combined with active engagement with property owners. The experiences of these Councils along with recommendations from the Ministry for the Environment have been taken into account for this paper.
4. Discussion
Several other Councils use non-regulatory measures to assist with their SNA initiatives. In general, the most effective approaches are when a combination of economic and non-economic assistance is offered. This combination provides a mix of support and incentive to landowners to participate in SNA management activities. This combination may be able to be adjusted depending on the type of biodiversity that needs to be protected, and the type of impact on the landowner.
A community survey was conducted in September 2018 via the Hutt City Views panel to canvas general community attitudes to native bush and willingness to pay for its protection. The results and related contingent valuation (available on the Council website http://iportal.huttcity.govt.nz/Record/ReadOnly?Tab=3&Uri=5054819) show the community values native bush highly and has a high level of willingness to pay for its protection and enhancement.
The results provide Council with a solid basis to fund support landowners who commit to protecting and managing their SNAs.
The measures that Hutt City Council could offer are discussed below.
4.1 Information and Advice
Several Councils offer advice, planning, assessment and monitoring services. Landowners will have access to expert ecologists, and the personal contact can assist with building relationships. The position of Ecology / Horticultural Officer was established by Council to assist with landowner engagement around SNAs, both for the District Plan set-up phase and for ongoing management efforts. .The officer also leads Council’s efforts to ensure Council-owned land is managed appropriately with regard to indigenous biodiversity and is involved in horticultural management in the Parks and Gardens Division. The role is split approximately 50/50 biodiversity/horticulture.
Information and advice can be an effective tool, as it provides landowners with personal access to skills and expertise and can assist with relationship building.
Information and advice would include:
· ecological expertise and advice.
· free information on planting, pest management, native species, local conservation groups and resources provided by other agencies such as Greater Wellington Regional Council and Department of Conservation. Enquiries may be referred to specialists for more information and free on-site visits are available.
· development of action plans.
· development and/or management of council biodiversity programmes and projects (e.g. plant and animal pest control programmes).
· development or commissioning of appropriate biodiversity monitoring programmes.
Councils can prepare and distribute information that can assist landowners and community groups involved in SNA protection activities.
· brochures and booklets
· articles showing good practice in local newspapers, council newsletters or other council communications
· reports with more detailed technical information
· website information
· phone numbers that landowners and members of the community can call for advice.
Benefits and Costs
Information and advice is relatively low-cost and can be an effective tool, as it provides landowners with personal access to skills and expertise and helps to increase the effectiveness of their management efforts.
The direct and ongoing engagement can assist with relationship building.
Information and Advice requires the ongoing employment of a qualified, experienced professional. The officer needs access to administrative support and a budget for the production and distribution of information. The Ecology / Horticultural Officer is already employed at Council as 0.5 FTE in ecology and biodiversity and ,. the administrative support required is able to be provided with existing staff resources so there would be no cost additional to existing budgets.
The cost of preparing and distributing information is estimated at $10,000 annually.
4.2 Rates Rebates
The recently released Biodiversity Collaborative Group Report on the Draft National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity recommends to Government that land protected in perpetuity by conservation covenants be non-rateable.
Benefits and Costs
Rates rebates on covenants would directly recognise the community benefits provided by protected private land. At the level of full rebate of the land value component of rates, the financial support given to landowners may be well-regarded and provide a useful incentive to establish protective legal instruments on the Record of Title.
If, over time, 10% of SNAs were protected in legal instruments that were eligible for rates rebates, Council would forego several tens of thousands of dollars in annual rates income. This report recommends that Council allows $10,000 annually for rates rebates in the short term.
The cost of rates rebates is well within the range of willingness to pay suggested by the community survey and contingent valuation referred to above.
4.3 Land Use Resource Consent Fee Remissions and Ecological Assessments for Land Use Consent Applications
The District Plan will enable specified minor vegetation clearing in SNAs to be permitted activities. Other vegetation clearance would trigger land use resource consent, which would mean site specific assessment of the proposed clearance and its adverse effects, informed by an ecological assessment. Landowner acceptance of SNAs would be enhanced by transferring the costs of the consent process, including the ecological assessments, from the landowner to the community via consent fee remissions.
Financial support would not be available for subdivision consent applications or ecological assessments directly associated with subdivision consent applications. That is because the District Plan subdivision rules will provide bonus subdivision allotments in return for legal protection of SNAs. The financial benefit to the landowner has the potential to be substantial and the costs of the subdivision consent process should be borne by the applicant.
This report recommends that in cases where SNAs trigger land use resource consent requirements, Council funds the following:
· the ecological assessments required as inputs to land use resource consent applications and
· the costs of the land use consent application consideration of the ecological assessment.
· the SNA component of the consent processing fee.
Historically, consents for work in SNA areas are not common, so the assessment of the financial impact is as follows:
|
Assistance with Ecological Assessment (assumed average cost $3,000, maximum $5,000) |
$3,000 |
|
Assistance with Consent Application based on Ecological Assessment |
1,000 |
|
Consent fee remission (SNA component) |
2,000 |
|
Grant per applicant annually |
7,000 |
|
Assumed maximum number of applicants per year (although the historic average is lower than that) |
10-20 |
|
Annual grant budget request |
120,000 |
4.4 Grants
Some Councils manage grants or contestable funds to support their SNA initiatives where landowners can apply for financial assistance for SNA protection activities.
Hutt City funding could be allocated in a two tier system - SNA Grants 1 and 2. The first tier, SNA Grants 1, would provide a small allocation of HCC funding (up to say $150 per year per SNA landowner) to provide protection, restoration and enhancement materials such as native plants, predator traps, weed spray. The allocation would be made on application (with a simple 1 page form) and be in the form of a voucher to a local plant nursery or reimbursement upon presentation of an invoice.
SNA Grants 1 would be a low key way to provide useful support for regular, small scale SNA management activities.
At a maximum of $150, and an assumed participation rate of about 15% of affected properties would require an annual budget of $25,000.
The SNA Grants 2 fund would be more involved and would be able to allocate much higher levels of funding. Funding eligibility would require the landowner to enter a binding agreement with Council to achieve the following:
· Ecological assessment of the property’s SNA
· Management plan for the property setting out areas for protection by covenant, production areas, areas for built development and vehicle access, pest and weed management regime, restoration and enhancement
· Protective covenants attached to property titles providing legal protection in perpetuity of agreed areas of the SNA
Funding could be allocated to all of the above aspects as well as materials (traps, sprays etc) for operational management. The suggested budget for the second tier fund is $80,000 to allow for several significant projects annually.
Council should invest some time into designing its funding programme so that the funding is allocated to effectively encourage landowners to participate in SNA protection activities, is assessed on the basis of the quality of the projects, and is not onerous to administer.
There are various ways to this including:
· Applicants to consult Council’s Ecology / Horticultural Officer to ensure that SNA protection activities meet Council’s expectations such as a Property Management Plan
· The protection of vegetation within the SNA covered by a legal covenant
· Ecology / Horticultural Officer to assessing the sustainability of the project
· Ecology / Horticultural Officer to monitor the SNA after the project has been completed
· Council has a robust process to assess applications
· Limit the maximum grant amount for each application
Applications would be received and assessed at key time(s) of the year so they can be compared to each other, enabling the funding to be proportionally allocated to the most beneficial or significant projects on a case by case basis. Council could open one or two rounds of applications annually. This would also reduce the administration resource required.
Typically Councils have limited funds available, so they should award the funding to the most beneficial or significant projects. Some Councils assess applications as they come in. This creates the risk that the annual available funding will be depleted and not available for a worthy project that materialises later in the financial year. This is possibly not the best way efficiently allocate scarce funds.
Another way to do this is to have specific dates at all applications are received and assessed. This is efficient because applications can be compared to each other, enabling the funding to be proportionally allocated on the basis of the quality of the applications. Council could open one or two rounds of applications annually. This would also reduce the administration resource required.
Many Councils that offer funding have designed forms to collect information about the applicant, the property and the proposed work or project. This process is usually administered by the Planning teams or Ecology officers. Hutt City Council runs very lean teams, so this process needs to be very efficient. This can be facilitated with online forms and a structured assessment system.
This has been an effective tool for other Councils.
5. SUGGESTED SUPPORT PACKAGE
This report recommends the assistance package set out in the table below.
|
Support Measure |
Annual Budget (additional to existing) |
|
Information and Advice |
$10,000 |
|
Rates rebates for land protected in perpetuity by legal instrument on Record of Title |
$10,000 |
|
Land use consent assistance including ecological assessments and consent fee remission |
$120,000 |
|
SNAG1 (small grants for traps, sprays, trees) |
$25,000 |
|
SNAG2 (large grants for covenants, ecological assessments, management plans) |
$80,000 |
|
Total |
$245,000 |
6. MONITORING AND REPORTING
The Ecological /Horticulture Officer will present an annual report to the Policy and Regulatory Committee summarising the support measures allocated, the results achieved and any recommended changes to the support package.
7. Consultation
This report has benefited from the advice and experience of the following organisations:
· Hamilton City Council
· Timaru District Council
· Marlborough District Council
· New Plymouth District Council
· Environment Canterbury
· Ministry for the Environment
The support package preferred by Council should be consulted on informally with SNA landowners then more formally with landowners and the wider community.
8. Legal Considerations
There are no legal considerations necessary for this report.
9. Financial Considerations
The financial implications are set out earlier in this report.
Council must consider that funding for this programme will be an addition to Council’s annual expenditure budget. Furthermore, rates and fee waivers and rebates will be a reduction to Council’s revenue.
10. Other Considerations
The support package recommended here should be considered as complementary to, and not alternative to, a District Plan approach that meets Council’s statutory obligations under the Resource Management Act.
Author:
|
|
Reviewed by:
,
|
|
Approved by:
,
|
|
272 29 November 2018
17 October 2018
File: (18/1661)
Report no: DPC2018/5/151
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.
|
Plan Change 52 Alignment with NZ Heritage List
2. At its meeting of 19 September 2018 the Committee considered a plan change proposal to align the District Plan with the New Zealand Heritage List. This involved adding three buildings, amending the District Plan listing of two buildings and deleting one building.
3. The Committee recommended notification of proposed Plan Change 52, which was approved for notification at the Council meeting of 9 October 2018. Public notification occurred on 16 October 2018. Submissions closed on 16 November 2018.
4. An update on submissions received will be available at the meeting.
Natural Hazards
5. Council has collaborated with Upper Hutt City Council, GNS Science and Urban Edge Planning to use improved information from the “It’s Our Fault” work of GNS Science to update the way the District Plan deals with land use along the Wellington Fault Line.
6. 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 with affected landowners prior to a formal District Plan change that will adopt a risk-based approach to managing land use.
7. Further analysis of the refined maps showed that 132 properties that are currently included in the Wellington Fault Special Study Area as included in the District Plan will no longer be affected by the new Wellington Fault Overlay. 777 properties will be affected to the same or a lesser extent and 15 properties will have an increased area affected by the new overlay. No new properties will be affected by the refined Wellington Fault Overlay.
8. Staff have also begun scoping the more accurate identification of areas subject to landslide risk.
Greenfield Development in Kelson
9. 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.
10. 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)
11. The land at the end of Shaftesbury Grove was identified as a potential greenfield development in the UGS.
12. Officers are in contact with consultants acting for the property owners and are expecting information from them to support a plan change.
13. Once suitable information is available, a plan change proposal will be prepared for the consideration of the Committee.
Proposed Plan Change 46 – Significant Natural Areas, Outstanding Natural Landscapes, Outstanding Natural Features and Coastal Natural Character
14. A draft district plan change proposal is presented elsewhere in this agenda.
Proposed Plan Change 43 - Residential and Suburban Mixed Use
15. Proposed Plan Change 43 is intended to enable residential growth by providing for intensification and greater housing choice within the existing urban environment.
16. Following the close of submissions, staff are preparing the section 42A report recommending decisions on submissions for consideration by a hearing panel. A hearing date will be sought for March 2019. All submitters will have the opportunity to speak to and present evidence in support of their submission.
Proposed Plan Change 36 - Notable Trees
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. The Environment Court hearing began on 24 May 2018. The hearing was adjourned so that the Court can deal (via section 293 of the RMA) with an issue it identified within the District Plan, ie, that the catch-all rule in residential zones gave unlisted activities non-complying activity status.
20. The Court has agreed with a Council proposal to resolve the issue by amending the list of permitted activities in residential zones. The Court has required Council to publicly notify the matter to enable submissions on the proposal. Public notice was given in the Hutt News and as an inclusion with the rates invoice that was sent on 20 November 2018.
21. Council is required to summarise and make recommendations on any submissions received and provide the submissions and report to the Court and all parties to the appeal. The Court will then determine the process from that point.
Seaview Marina
22. 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.
23. A natural hazards assessment and a visual assessment have now been received.
24. Staff are considering how the Marina is able to be accommodated in the format and zone structure proposed in the draft NZ Planning Standards.
25. A plan change proposal will be presented to the Committee for consideration in due course.
Riverlink - Hutt River Flood Management
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. 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
29. The National Policy Statement (NPS) 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 three, 10 and 30 year timeframes.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. The modelling work is ongoing. The results of the work will be presented to Council in due course.
National Planning Standards
34. The Ministry for the Environment (MfE) 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.
35. 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.
36. 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.
37. Staff provided comments to MfE on the draft National Planning Standards by the due date of 17 August 2018.
38. MfE has advised that its consideration of feedback is on track for recommendations to the Minister and formal gazetting of the Standards in April 2019.
Notice of Requirement from NZ Transport Agency for an upgrade to State Highway 58
39. 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).
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. 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
