Minutes of District Plan Review Subcommittee

2 18 February 2021

HUTT CITY COUNCIL

District Plan Review Subcommittee | Komiti Iti Arotake Mahere ā-Rohe

Minutes of a meeting held in the Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road,
Lower Hutt on

Thursday 18 February 2021 commencing at 2.00pm

PRESENT: Cr S Edwards (Chair) Cr B Dyer

Deputy Mayor T Lewis Cr N Shaw (via audio visual)

Ms M Dentice

APOLOGIES: Cr K Brown and Mr A Ede

IN ATTENDANCE: Cr A Mitchell

Ms H Oram, Director Environment and Sustainability

Mr H Wesney, Divisional Manager District Plan Policy

Mr N Geard, Senior Environmental Policy Analyst

Mr J Joseph, Senior Environmental Policy Analyst

Ms C McNab, Environmental Policy Analyst

Mr S Davis, Policy Planner

Mr B Haddrell, Policy Planner

Ms H Clegg, Minute Taker

PUBLIC BUSINESS

The Chair opened the meeting with a Karakia.

1. APOLOGIES

RESOLVED: (Cr Edwards/Deputy Mayor Lewis) Minute No. DPRS 21101

“That the apologies received from Cr Brown and Mr Ede be accepted and leave of absence be granted.”

The Chair explained that the meeting was a scoping meeting to provide direction for officers.

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

Comments are recorded under the item to which they relate.

3. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS

There were no conflict of interest declarations.

4. Minutes

Resolved: (Cr Edwards/Cr Dyer) Minute No. DPRS 21102

“That the minutes of the meeting of the District Plan Review Subcommittee held on
Tuesday, 15 December 2020, be confirmed as a true and correct record.”

Ecosystems and Indigenous Biodiversity (20/1313)

Report No. DPRS2021/1/5 by the Environmental Policy Analyst

Speaking under public comment, Mr Ken Jackson expressed support for Option C contained in the officer’s report. He said the next step would be to identify areas of biodiversity on privately owned land. He added that all parties should work together to future proof biodiversity on both private and public land.

Speaking under public comment, Ms Diana Clark expressed support for Option C contained in the officer’s report. She questioned the need to continue with the current review process in light of central government’s announcement to repeal the Resource Management Act (RMA). She advised that several landowners had turned to the Queen Elizabeth II Trust (QEII Trust) for assistance with preserving areas of biodiversity on their land.

Speaking under public comment, Ms Linda Mead expressed support for Option C contained in the officer’s report. She asked that clearer wording and maps be used during the consultation process, with accompanying explanations, to ensure parties understood the proposals. She sought clarity whether all vegetation, apart from trees, was now protected under the current District Plan.

Speaking under public comment, Mr Craig Innes expressed concern that the available set of data for areas of biodiversity was not sufficient, accurate or complete.

Under public comment, the Chair acknowledged receipt of a written statement from Mr Roger Finlay, attached as page 10 to the minutes.

The Environmental Policy Analyst elaborated on the report. She confirmed a decision on Plan Change 36 had yet to be received from the Environment Court. She noted this was delaying the decision for Plan Change 43.

In response to a question from a member, the Environmental Policy Analyst advised that whilst the RMA was currently being reviewed, Councils had been instructed by the Ministry of the Environment to continue with “business as usual”.

The Divisional Manager District Plan Policy advised that a report would be reported to members explaining the RMA reform process and high level direction.

In response to a question from a member regarding the QEII Trust assisting landowners to preserve biodiversity on their land, the Environmental Policy Analyst agreed to report back to members on the issue.

In response to a question from a member regarding the existence or creation of maps, the Environmental Policy Analyst advised it was the officer’s preference to engage with the community about the overarching issues first so as not to pre-determine any outcomes. She said officers would then investigate methods to identify areas of land. She agreed to follow up about the accuracy of the map data sets.

In response to a question from a member, the Environmental Policy Analyst advised that officers were keen to establish working groups throughout the city as part of the overall process.

Resolved: (Cr Edwards/Deputy Mayor Lewis) Minute No. DPRS 21103

“That the Subcommittee:

(1) notes and receives the information contained in the report;

(2) agrees to working with affected landowners, community interest groups, GWRC, Forest and Bird and the Department of Conservation to determine a way forward in line with Option C;

(3) agrees to the engagement approach for the review of Ecosystems and Indigenous Biodiversity as summarised in section 7 and Option C of the officer’s report;

(4) develops an approach for identifying and protecting significant areas of indigenous biodiversity in consultation with the community and stakeholders; and

(5) if/when a National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity is released, reviews the topic in light of any requirements, including with input from stakeholders and landowners.”

For the reasons to ensure appropriate and effective engagement and consultation with land owners and wider community from the beginning of the process; work with the community to address concerns and determine a way forward; to give effect to RMA, RPS, the National Planning Standards, and upcoming national policy statements specifically for ecosystems and indigenous biodiversity and any relevant Environment Court Decisions and declarations and efficient use of Council resources.

Natural Character, Natural Features and Landscapes (20/1539)

Report No. DPRS2021/1/6 by the Environmental Policy Analyst

The Environmental Policy Analyst elaborated on the report.

In response to a question from a member, the Environmental Policy Analyst explained that public consultation would occur for the environment as a whole.

Resolved: (Cr Edwards/Cr Dyer) Minute No. DPRS 21104

“That the Subcommittee:

(1) notes and receives the information contained in the report;

(2) agrees to undertake a review of the Natural Character, Natural Features and Landscape topics in line with the details set out in Option 2 contained within the officer’s report;

(3) agrees to working with affected landowners, community interest groups, GWRC and the Department of Conservation to determine a way forward;

(4) agrees to the engagement approach for the review of Natural Character, Natural Features and Landscapes as summarised in section 7 of the officer’s report; and

(5) develops an approach for identifying and protecting significant sites of Natural Character, Features and Landscapes in consultation with landowners, the community and stakeholders.”

For the reasons to ensure appropriate and effective engagement and consultation with land owners, communities, stakeholders and the public from the beginning of the process; reflect the nature, qualities and pressures on significant areas of Natural Character, Natural Features and Landscapes; to give effect to RMA, RPS, NZCPS and the National Planning Standards; aims to protect the value of areas for future generations; and efficient use of Council resources.

Coastal Environment (20/1746)

Report No. DPRS2021/1/7 by the Environmental Policy Analyst

The Environmental Policy Analyst elaborated on the report.

In response to a question from a member, the Environmental Policy Analyst advised that Greater Wellington Regional Council was undertaking flood modelling exercises. She said that if any issues arose from the discussions then information would be report back to members.

Resolved: (Cr Edwards/Deputy Mayor Lewis) Minute No. DPRS 21105

“That the Subcommittee:

(1) notes and receives the information contained in the report;

(2) agrees to undertake a review of the Coastal Environment topic in line with the details set out in Option 2 contained within the report; and

(3) agrees to the engagement approach for the review of Coastal Environment as summarised in section 8 of the officer’s report.”

For the reasons to ensure appropriate and effective engagement and consultation from the beginning of the process; reflect the nature, qualities, hazards and pressures on/in the Coastal Environment; to give effect to RMA, NZCPS, RPS, and the National Planning Standards and efficient use of Council resources.

Activities on the Surface of Water (20/1526)

Report No. DPRS2021/1/8 by the Policy Planner

The Policy Planner elaborated on the report.

In response to a question from a member, the Policy Planner explained that Greater Wellington Regional Council dealt with the quality of the water and the Whaitua process. He said the District Plan could only influence the effects of activities on the surface of water.

Resolved: (Cr Edwards/Cr Dyer) Minute No. DPRS 21106

“That the Subcommittee:

(1) notes and receives the information contained in the report;

(2) agrees to undertake the review of Activities on the Surface of Water topic as set out in Option 1 contained in the officer’s report; and

(3) agrees to undertake engagement, in regard to Activities on the Surface of Water, as set out in Option 1 of the officer’s report.”

For the reason(s) that it is an efficient use of Council resources; it will ensure Council can continue to give effect to statutory requirements; consultation and engagement will be undertaken with stakeholders, particularly Mana Whenua, and the community; it will allow officers and Council to understand the most appropriate means to address the issues outlined in this report and raised through the engagement; and can be undertaken within the current budget.

Hospital Zone (20/1747)

Report No. DPRS2021/1/9 by the Senior Environmental Policy Analyst

The Senior Environmental Policy Analyst elaborated on the report.

Resolved: (Cr Edwards/Deputy Mayor Lewis) Minute No. DPRS 21107

“That the Subcommittee:

(1) notes and receives the information contained in the report, and

(2) directs officers to undertake the District Plan Review through the following approach (Option 2 in the Options section of the officer’s report):

A review of the existing objectives, policies and rules, with a focus on the balance between:

(a) The types and scale of land use development that is provided for within the Hospital Zone, and

(b) The effects of land use and development on the surrounding area, and

an investigation into whether the site of the Boulcott Hospital should be included in the Hospital Zone.”

10.

Tertiary Education (20/1688)

Report No. DPRS2021/1/10 by the Senior Environmental Policy Analyst

The Senior Environmental Policy Analyst elaborated on the report.

In response to a question from a member, the Senior Environmental Policy Analyst confirmed Plan Change 25 had included specific parking provisions for WelTec. He said that these were no longer in effect due to the introduction of a new NPS late in 2020.

Resolved: (Cr Edwards/Cr Dyer) Minute No. DPRS 21108

“That the Subcommittee:

(1) receives the information in the report; and

(2) directs officers to undertake the tertiary education topic of the District Plan Review through the following approach:

(a) carry out engagement with key stakeholders;

(b) review all existing provisions of the tertiary education precinct in the operative district plan;

(c) review all other district plan provisions that apply to sites with significant tertiary education facilities in Lower Hutt;

(d) develop high level options for the tertiary education topic that address the key issues identified in this report; and

(e) develop district plan provisions for the tertiary education topic that give effect to the selected high level option.”

11. QUESTIONS

There were no questions.

There being no further business the Chair declared the meeting closed at 3.15 pm.

Cr S Edwards

CHAIR

CONFIRMED as a true and correct record

Dated this 18th day of May 2021