District Plan Committee
Minutes of a meeting held in the Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road,
Lower Hutt on
Thursday 29 November 2018 commencing at 5.30pm
PRESENT: Cr L Bridson (Chair) Cr MJ Cousins
Cr C Barry Cr S Edwards
Cr J Briggs Cr T Lewis
Cr C Milne
APOLOGIES: There were no apologies.
IN ATTENDANCE: Mayor WR Wallace
Deputy Mayor D Bassett
Cr G Barratt
Cr G McDonald
Cr L Sutton
Cr M Lulich
Mr T Stallinger, Chief Executive
Ms K Kelly, General Manager, City Transformation
Mr B Kibblewhite, General Manager, Corporate Services (part meeting)
Mr L Allott, Chief Information Officer
Mr B Cato, General Counsel (part meeting)
Ms H Oram, Divisional Manager Environmental Consents
Mr A Cumming, Divisional Manager, District Plan
Ms C Tessendorf, Senior Environmental Policy Analyst (part meeting)
Mr J Jeffries, Environmental Policy Analyst
Ms K Stannard, Divisional Manager, Democratic Services
Mr J Hoyle, Communications and Marketing Advisor
Ms S Haniel, Committee Advisor
PUBLIC BUSINESS
1. APOLOGIES
There were no apologies.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
The Chair determined that the time limit for public comment would be extended to allow all speakers to be heard by the members.
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 - 29 November 2018
|
Proposed District Plan Change 46 Significant Natural Areas, Outstanding Natural Landscapes, Outstanding Natural Features and Coastal Natural Character (18/1800) |
||||||||||||||||||
|
Speaking under public comment, Mr W Bearman-Riedel, representing Power Inc, opposed Proposed District Plan Change 46 (PPC46). He believed he would lose sunlight, have building restrictions and lose property rights. He considered there were already sufficient rules in place to protect the bush. Speaking under public comment, Mr A Olney, representing Power Inc, said that there had not been enough consultation on PPC46. He also said the maps did not adequately identify where restrictions ought to apply. He cited Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society NZ v New Plymouth District Council, which ruled that voluntary controls, on their own were not a sufficient protection to meet Council’s legal obligations. In response to questions from members, Mr Olney said that the scale and accuracy of the maps was important. He considered that voluntary management of Significant Natural Areas (SNAs) in combination with rules would be sufficient for Council to meet its statutory obligations. Speaking under public comment, Ms D Clark, said that she had an online petition to stop Council’s SNA project. She added that the Chief Executive had received a copy of the petition. She did not know how many of the signatories lived in Lower Hutt. Speaking under public comment, Mr G Gilbert opposed PPC46. He believed he would not be able to develop his land and there was no compensation available for his loss. He considered that Council should stop all developments on its green fields that contained flora and fauna. He queried why the Wainuiomata and Orongorongo Rivers had been removed from the SNA areas. Speaking under public comment, Mr A Beatson, representing landowners, considered that SNAs needed to be accurately identified before Council notified PPC46. He further said that the SNAs identified by Wildlands needed to be “ground truthed” before being included in PPC46. Speaking under public comment, Mr I Gordon representing Ms C Henshaw and the Cretney family in Eastbourne, agreed with Mr Onley’s and Mr Beatson’s comments and that Wildlands were required to have correct ground truthing. He said that it was fatuous to suggest that consultation could occur after notification. Speaking under public comment, Mr P Marriot said that he was a Resource Consultant and Conservationist. He opposed PPC46 and believed that private property owners were best placed to carry out forest management. Speaking under public comment, Mr G Innes said that he had previously worked as a Chief Executive in three Councils. He considered that Council should take more time to consult further with the community and have correct mapping before proceeding with PPC46. Speaking under public comment, Ms R Dentice, representing her wider Puketapu whanau, said that they owned five properties and it was the responsibility of her whanau to care for the land. She considered that PPC46 undermined the mana of her whenua by placing an SNA cloak over it. She further considered PPC46 confusing, offensive, frustrating and would disconnect her people from their whenua. Speaking under public comment, Ms V Horrocks, Chair, representing the Eastbourne Community Board, said that landowners wanted certainty about the effects of PPC46 on their properties. She knew of people that were still trying to get information about their SNA from Council and until that occurred, people would not have confidence in PPC46. She noted that Council had two years to notify the decision and asked that officers spend more time with individual landowners. Speaking under public comment, Mr A Alcorn said that Council needed to co-operate with landowners to identify the SNAs and assist them to protect their land. Speaking under public comment, Mr C White said that PPC46 would prevent him from cutting back his bush in order for him to graze sheep. Therefore, he had already cut back the bush so that it would not be affected by the SNA. Speaking under public comment, Ms N Lambourne believed that historically, officers had come onto her land under false pretenses, using the guise of doing a possum count, to assess the SNA on her land. She recommended that landowners do not let officers onto their land. Speaking under public comment, Mr S Galyer said that he had cleared the gorse off his land and the rest was native bush. He did not approve of the way Councils treated SNAs, particularly the use of 1080. Speaking under public comment, Mr P Baker said that the SNA maps were not accurate. He recommended that Council stop the SNA process for private landowners and reconsider what it was trying to achieve from PPC46. Speaking under public comment, Ms L Collins said that all the land around her house was shown as a SNA. She noted that she would not be able to cut down the hebe that was overgrowing her deck. She added that Wildlands was the decision maker and Council was not following a democratic process. Speaking under public comment, Mr G Absalom said that he owned Orongorongo Station. He had asked Council for a meeting with officers three times and had no response. He was alarmed that he would not be able to put tracks in or develop his property for tourism ventures. The meeting adjourned at 7.45pm and reconvened at 7.53pm. The Chair indicated her intention to move a motion to delay notifying PPC46 to allow further consultation with the community. Cr Cousins raised a point of order regarding members of the public creating disorder at the meeting. The Chair noted the point of order. Speaking under public comment, Mr B Lett said that SNAs imposed a severe restriction on the land and was akin to taking private property. He had plans to build an astronomical observatory or a small house on his land and objected strongly to PPC46. Speaking under public comment, Ms R Maxwell and Ms T A Puketapu, representing the Chairman of Te Runanganui o Taranaki Whanui ki te Upoko o Te Ika a Maui and the Waiwhetu Marae Trust said that they had not been consulted on PPC46. They believed Council had not completed its obligations under the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi to consult with mana whenua who have inherent rights of landownership. They requested that Council stop the SNA process and consult with mana whenua. Speaking under public comment, Mr S Buckland said that he supported PPC46 in principle, however, he did not understand the implications to him personally. He requested that it be delayed and be reported back to the Committee in six months time. Speaking under public comment, Mr J Edmunson said that a valuer had told him that a covenant would decrease the value of a property. He advised that he had not seen an impact assessment of the effect that PPC46 would have on property values. He considered that Council could not make a decision unless it knew the cost. Speaking under public comment, Mr O Revera said that the issue of SNAs arose in 1999 and Council should have put them in place in 2001. He bought the property in 2005 after checking it did not have a covenant on it. He considered that Council had not completed its obligations in 2001. Speaking under public comment, Mr I Caddis said that he could not make judgements about PPC46 because he could not get basic information from Council on the matter. He added that Council should not be blindly following law, and should push back on behalf of its ratepayers. Speaking under public comment, Mr G Sinclair encouraged members to set the policy for Council and not to simply rubber stamp recommendations from officers. He added that Council needed maximal input from the community on the matter. Speaking under public comment, Ms L Mead said that she supported SNAs because they offered a layer of protection for biodiversity assets. She added that SNAs were an overlay on the District Plan and were not to stop people doing things on their property. She believed there was a lot of misinformation about SNAs in the community and people did not understand the issue. Speaking under public comment, Ms L Gerrard said that she had a river through her property and when it flooded, they moved their stock to high ground. She believed that under the SNA she would not be able to use the high ground for stock. Speaking under public comment, Mr T Hefford said that he was the Rural Fire Officer in Wainuiomata. He expressed concern that landowners would light fires to clear bush to avoid the SNAs in PPC46. Speaking under public comment, Mr P Roy said that he was confused about the s293 notice he received. He believed it had contrary rules to PPC46 about protecting the biodiversity on his property. He was therefore confused about whether he could remove wilding pines, indigenous or exotic vegetation. Speaking under public comment, Ms J Martin said that 80% of her property would be a SNA. However, 40% of that was gorse, scrub and manuka which she planned to clear to run a tourism venture on her farm. She noted that under PPC46 she would not be able to do so. Speaking under public comment, Mr A Hart said that he supported SNAs. However she believed Council should have undertaken a better consultation process. H e considered that people would clear their bush before PPC46 came into effect. Speaking under public comment, Ms J Sylvester said that SNAs would have a 20% decrease on the value of freehold land. She believed that Council was using drones to assess SNAs. She knew of people that had negative health issues because of the SNA process. She considered SNAs should only be on Council land and that it be a voluntary process for private landowners. Speaking under public comment, Ms J Wooton said that there were incidents of stressed landowners becoming unwell because of the SNA process. She believed there was a lot of mistrust and ill feeling in the community about the issue. Speaking under public comment, Mr C Innes said that he endorsed Council taking a six month delay before progressing the SNAs. Speaking under public comment, Mr D Collins said that he supported Council taking an extra six months to consult before progressing SNAs. he SNA map of his property was incorrect and did not show one of the houses that was on his land. Speaking under public comment, Mr P Matcham said that he supported SNAs and there was a lot of misunderstanding and some deliberate misinformation about the issue which had caused confusion. He had received helpful responses from officers who had done a site visit and answered his queries. PPC46 would be a public good achieved through a partnership between Council and landowners. In response to a question from a member, Mr Matcham said that he would support having a Queen Elizabeth II covenant on his land. Speaking under public comment, Ms V Nelson said that she did not appreciate the way that SNAs had been imposed on her land. She requested that Council consult further with the community. Speaking under public comment, Mr K Jackson said that community engagement on SNAs could occur through workshops with the Forest and Bird Society, landowners and Council. He added that the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society NZ v New Plymouth District Council case was different to the situation at Lower Hutt because the typography of the land differed. He further said that there were inconsistencies with the SNA mapping and encouraged Council to obtain community buy-in. The meeting adjourned at 9.17pm and reconvened at 9.30pm. The Divisional Manager District Plan and Mr Stephen Quinn, Partner, DLA Piper, elaborated on the report. In response to questions from members, the Divisional Manager District Plan advised that: · Evidence to show changes in biodiversity could be obtained by having a comprehensive monitoring regime. · Officers had engaged with iwi, (the Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust (PNBST) and the Wellington Tenths Trust), for the past 18 months. Council’s relationship agreement with iwi was that Council would engage with PNBST in the first instance and take the advice of the PNBST and the Wellington Tenths Trust regarding engagement with iwi. Council recognised engaging with iwi on this project was on at least three levels; as a Treaty partner, obtaining iwi input into the technical assessments and as landowners. · Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC) did not have a Regional Policy Statement in 2003. Therefore, Council did not have the same obligation then, as it did now to implement SNAs. · Finalisation of SNA maps could occur during the formal consultation and submission processes. PPC46 maps did not need to be finalised prior to consultation. · Officers had not used drones to assess SNAs. · Legal advice from DLA Piper was that if SNA protection on private land was solely voluntary, then Council would be unlikely to be meeting its statutory obligations under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). · Officers were undertaking site visits at times that suited property owners. Those times included evenings and weekends. · He believed that landowners had given each other advice not to let officers onto their land because of their concern that the SNA areas would be increased. However, officers had given an undertaking that the SNA would not be increased without the agreement of the landowner. · Officers would not conduct site visits without the agreement of the landowners. · Officers did not recommend the use of forcible entry onto properties where landowners did not agree to a site visit. · Officers had always seen the need to do ground truthing, hence the programme of site visits. However, where landowners refused officers entry, the SNA could not be ground truthed. Following a site visit, most but not all landowners were happier with the proposed SNA on their land. · Officers continually received requests for site visits. However, only two staff, an ecologist and another staff member were available for the work. An increase of another two staff members would speed up the process. · Officers would be pleased to talk to Mr Absalom to correct an error regarding fixing a date for his site visit. · Officers would be able to discuss with Ms Gerrard about using her high ground for stock during flooding events. A site visit would be helpful. There was nothing in PPC46 to prevent stock entering an SNA. The emergency provisions of the RMA would overrule resource consent requirements in a flood emergency. · Parks owned by Council and GWRC were required, under statute, to have management plans in place, therefore had more protection than private land. However, there was room for improved biodiversity management on Council holdings. · Council’s public notice regarding RMA s293 consultation notice resulted from an Environment Court order for Council to consult on the proposed minor technical amendments to Proposed Plan Change 36 (PPC36), Notable Trees and Vegetation Removal. PPC36 was complex and difficult to explain in simple terms. He agreed that the timing of the PPC36 notice and the PPC46 report was confusing. However, they were two separate issues. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
Resolved: (Cr Briggs/Cr Bridson) Minute No. DPC 18501 “That Standing Order 4.2 be suspended in order to extend the meeting duration past 10.30pm.” |
||||||||||||||||||
|
Moved: (Cr Bridson/Cr Cousins) “That the Committee: (i) recommends that Council: (a) notes the Proposed Plan Change, attached as Appendix 1 to the report; (b) instructs officers to do further consultation including mana whenua and site visits; (c) instructs officers to puts out a draft plan change consistent with proposed plan change 46 for consultation; (d) notes that changes to the maps will continue as more information becomes available; (e) encourages landowners to have a site visit onto their land; 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:
The motion was declared lost by Division with the voting as follows:
Cr Barry considered that Council needed to work with residents to obtain a good result. He did not agree that Council had to follow the same process that New Plymouth District Council followed. He also considered that a Council subcommittee would assist in the process and encourage a partnership approach with the community. He believed that a voluntary approach with incentives would achieve the same benefits as PPC46. Cr Edwards expressed support with a partnership approach to establishing SNAs. He believed it was important for officers to work with environmental groups, such as the East Harbour Environmental Association. Cr Milne considered that people valued the environment more than they used to as attested to by the proliferation of predator free groups and bird counts. He said that had not seen any evidence of wholesale clearing of native bush and there would be little gain in having PPC46. He supported having a voluntary approach to SNAs and the use of Queen Elizabeth II covenants. Cr Briggs expressed support with Cr Barry’s comments. He believed Council needed to work face to face with the community, Te Runanganui o Taranaki Whanui ki te Upoko o Te Ika a Maui and Waiwhetu Marae, to regain the faith that had been lost. He considered that Council could monitor the voluntary uptake and the biodiversity in the next 12 to 24 months. He supported a partnership approach with the community and accepted the level of legal risk with the approach. Cr Cousins did not believe a voluntary approach to SNAs would meet Council’s legal obligations. She encouraged landowners to have a site visit and for Council to work toward a draft plan change. Cr McDonald said that she felt for people whose health had been affected by the SNA process. She supported a voluntary approach to SNAs and to wait for six months before proceeding with PPC46. Cr Lewis believed that Council needed to build trust and relationships with residents. The community had told Council that it was not listening; however, members had listened tonight and would do their best for the community. She supported a voluntary approach to SNAs. Cr Lulich said that he was particularly concerned about the stress on Eastbourne residents with regard to; whether the SNA would be on their Land Information Memorandum; the implications when they sold the property; and whether future generations could live on part of the land. He considered that there would be opposition in the Environment Court if Council proceeded with PPC46. He supported a voluntary approach to SNA. The Chair said that she had heard the angst in the community, and that people loved the bush and their land noting that the best people to manage the bush were the landowners. However, there had been a lot of misunderstanding and miscommunication about PPC46 which had put the community offside. She considered PPC46 was the correct document for having better communication about SNAs. She considered a voluntary approach would not be sufficient for Council to meet its statutory obligations. In response to a question from a member,
the Divisional Manager District Plan said that a District Plan change and
mapping would not be required if Council decided to take a voluntary approach
to SNAs. If SNAs were mapped in the District Plan, then their purpose
would be to trigger a consent process. In a voluntary SNA scheme, the
triggering of the consent process would not be required. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
recommended: (BY DIVISION) (Cr Barry/Cr Briggs) Minute No. DPC 18502 “That the Committee: (i) recommends that Council: (a) takes a partnership approach in identifying and protecting Significant Natural Areas (SNAs) across Lower Hutt, without mandatory restrictions, and instead provide for incentives for the protection and conservation of SNAs and the flora and fauna that live within them; (b) notes that this would allow for stakeholders, and mana whenua (including Te Runanganui o Taranaki Whanui ki te Upoko o Te Ika a Maui and Waiwhetu Marae), to work together in good faith, and on a case by case basis, towards the enhancement of our biodiversity in Lower Hutt; and (c) asks officers to amend the proposed plan change to give effect to this resolution, and that it be reported back to full Council as soon as practicable; 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; and (b) supports the funding of the following non-regulatory support measures that are complementary to Proposed Plan Change 46 as follows:
The motion was declared carried by Division with the voting as follows:
|
5. Information Item
|
District Plan Update (18/1661) Report No. DPC2018/5/151 by the Divisional Manager District Plan |
|
Resolved: (Cr Bridson/Cr Cousins) Minute No. DPC 18503 “That the item being discussed be referred to the next meeting of the Committee.”
|
6. QUESTIONS
There were no questions.
There being no further business the Chair declared the meeting closed at 11.21 pm.
Cr L Bridson
CHAIR
CONFIRMED as a true and correct record
Dated this 26th day of March 2019