Agenda of District Plan Review Subcommittee

21 18 May 2021

District Plan Review Subcommittee

23 April 2021

File: (21/649)

Report no: DPRS2021/2/107

Urban Form and Development - Intensification Areas

Purpose of Report

1. Update the District Plan Review Subcommittee (the subcommittee) on the progress of the intensification aspect of the Urban Form and Development topic of the District Plan review.

2. Seek direction from the subcommittee to undertake public engagement on the walkable catchments for providing intensification under the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD). The purpose of this engagement would be to seek community feedback on what is an appropriate walkable catchment in the Lower Hutt context.

Recommendations

That the Subcommittee endorses the following approach for the next stage of the intensification part of the Urban Form and Development topic:

(1) engage with the community and seek feedback on the walkable catchment areas for enabling intensification under Policy 3 of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) based on Option 3 – which would include presenting maps of potential intensification areas based on GIS network analysis of walkable catchments of:

· the city centre;

· railway stations on both the Hutt Valley and Melling lines; and

· a potential Metropolitan centre in Petone;

(2) carry out further work to determine ‘accessibility’ and ‘relative demand’ in Lower Hutt for the purposes of Policy 3(d) of the NPS-UD; and

(3) carry out further work to determine the “qualifying matters” for excluding areas for intensification required under Policy 3 of the NPS-UD.

Background

3. The purpose of the Urban Form and Development topic within the district plan review is to:

a. provide high level direction and set the high level zoning framework for the District Plan review.

b. provide objectives in the reviewed district plan to provide strategic direction to the other chapters of the plan with regard to urban form and development.

4. On 11 November 2020, the District Plan Subcommittee received an initial briefing on the Urban Form and Development topic of the District Plan Review.

5. The Subcommittee resolved the following:

a. directs officers to undertake the urban form and development component of the District Plan Review through the following approach (Option 1 outlined in the Options section of the report):

i. investigate and engage on how the intensification direction of the NPS-UD can be given effect to through the District Plan review;

ii. investigate and engage on the extent to which further intensification should be enabled in existing urban areas subject to natural hazards.

iii. investigate and engage on how and when greenfield development could be enabled in Upper Fitzherbert and Kelson.

iv. carry out spatial identification of the planned future urban form of Hutt City, and develop provisions for the urban form and development chapter.

b. directs officers to undertake a more expansive greenfield option for developing the city with investigations of potential greenfield areas outside of Upper Fitzherbert and Kelson in the Western Hills including the Kilminster Block, Moores Valley and Coast Road (Option 2 outlined in the Options section of the report).

6. This report will focus on the intensification aspects of the subcommittee resolution above. The points relating to greenfield development will be addressed in a subsequent report.

7. Under policy 3(a, b, and c) of the NPS-UD Council is required to enable the following intensification through the District Plan:

a. As much development as possible in the city centre.

b. At least six storeys within metropolitan centres and within at least a walkable catchment of:

i. the edge of the city centre.

ii. The edge of any metropolitan centres.

iii. Rapid transit stations.

8. These requirements to enable intensification under policy 3 are only able to be modified to the extent necessary to accommodate the following ‘qualifying matters’:

· Matters of national importance (specified in section 6 of the Act. This includes historic heritage and natural hazards among others).

· Other national policy statements.

· The safe and efficient operation of nationally significant infrastructure.

· Open space provided for public use.

· Designations and heritage orders.

· Iwi participation legislation.

· Provision of sufficient business land suitable for low density uses.

· Any other matter that makes high density development inappropriate in an area, if supported by an evaluation report (requirements for the evaluation report are stated in the NPS-UD).

Discussion

9. Following the resolution of the District Plan Subcommittee on 11 November 2020, the District Plan team has produced conceptual and indicative maps of walkable catchments of 400, 600, 800, and 1000 metres for each of the following areas:

a. The Lower Hutt City Centre

b. The potential metropolitan centre of Petone

c. Rapid transit stations on the Hutt Valley and Melling rail lines.

10. These conceptual and indicative walkable catchment maps have not been modified to accommodate the ‘qualifying matters’ for excluding areas from intensification, set out in paragraph 8 above. Further work is required to determine where the ‘qualifying matters’ may apply and how they should be addressed through the district plan.

11. The purpose of this report is to seek direction from the subcommittee on engaging with the community to seek feedback on the potential walkable catchments for enabling intensification under policy 3 of the NPS-UD.

12. The centres of intensification identified under Plan Change 43 and now zoned Suburban Mixed Use and Medium Density Residential were based in part on walkable catchments around rail stations and centres. These centres were generally based around an approximate distance of 400 metres, however there was some variation. These intensification centres identified under plan change 43 are unlikely to be sufficient to give effect to the NPS-UD as they do not cover every railway station or the edge of the city centre. Some of these centres may also not cover a sufficient area to be considered a true ‘walkable catchment’.

Options

13. The recommended approach for the next stage of the intensification part of the Urban Form and Development topic is to:

a. Engage with the community and seek feedback on the walkable catchment areas for enabling intensification under policy 3 of the NPS-UD. Alternate options for this engagement are presented below. The purpose of this engagement is to seek feedback on what is a walkable catchment in the Lower Hutt context.

b. Carry out further work to determine ‘accessibility’ and ‘relative demand’ in Lower Hutt for the purposes of policy 3(d) of the NPS-UD.

c. Carry out further work to determine the ’qualifying matters’ for excluding areas from the intensification required under Policy 3 of the NPS-UD especially for:

i. Natural hazards.

ii. Historic Heritage.

iii. Residential character.

iv. Maori culture and traditions, customary rights, any matter related to Iwi participation legislation.

Option 1

14. Option 1: Engage with the community and seek feedback on the walkable catchment areas for enabling intensification under policy 3 of the NPS-UD based on distances and walking times described in metres and minutes respectively from:

a. the city centre.

b. railway stations on both the Hutt Valley and Melling lines; and

c. a potential Metropolitan centre in Petone.

15. This option would not include maps of the specific areas potentially affected by the policy but could use a conceptual map to illustrate how the zoning may apply. This option could include distances and walking times ranging from 400 meters or five minutes, to 1 km or 13 minutes.

16. This option would have the disadvantage of providing less information for the community to engage with and would provide less certainty on which specific areas may be affected.

Option 2

17. Engage with the community and seek feedback on the walkable catchment areas for enabling intensification under policy 3 of the NPS-UD based on maps of ‘crow flies’ radii, or circles, around:

a. the city centre.

b. railway stations on both the Hutt Valley and Melling lines. and

c. a potential Metropolitan centre in Petone.

18. This option would include high level maps of the areas potentially affected with the circles of various distances ranging from 400 metres to 1 km overlaid.

19. This option would provide more information for the community to engage with and a better means of understanding the potentially affected areas than option 1. It would also enable a generalised discussion of the approximate size of the area affected without a focus on specific individual sites.

20. However, these conceptual areas could overstate the areas affected as ‘crow flies’ circles are generally larger than the area affected by the actual walking distance (see the image in Figure 1 below which shows the difference between these two). It would also provide less information for the public to engage with than maps of the specific walking distances affected based on GIS network analysis.

Figure 1: Example of difference between an 800-m walkable catchment from the edge of a centre zone and an 800-m radius circle from a centre point.

Option 3

21. Engage with the community and seek feedback on the walkable catchment areas for enabling intensification under policy 3 of the NPS-UD based on GIS network analysis to show maps of actual walking distances from:

a. the city centre.

b. railway stations on both the Hutt Valley and Melling lines; and

c. a potential Metropolitan centre in Petone.

22. This option would include maps of the areas potentially affected with the specific mapped walking distances of 400, 600, 800, and 1 km shown at a high level.

23. This option would provide a high level of information for the public to engage with, and would provide a more realistic illustration of the size of the areas within different walking distances.

24. A downside of this option is that it may focus discussion on specific individual properties rather than on the broad areas – i.e. what is a walkable catchment/distance in the Lower Hutt context. It also may imply a stronger degree of certainty on the zoning implications than is the case with the current information.

Climate Change Impact and Considerations

25. The matters addressed in this report have been considered in accordance with the process set out in Council’s Climate Change Considerations Guide.

26. Intensification and a more compact urban form can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing the overall need for travel, increasing use of public and active transport, reducing car use, and providing more energy efficient housing types. By contrast a greater reliance on greenfield growth is likely to increase overall emissions.

27. The effects of sea level rise also have implications for urban form and development as this will increase the risk to existing urban areas in low lying and coastal locations.

Engagement

28. Given the scale and significance of the intensification aspect of the Urban Form and Development topic for the District Plan Review, a high level of engagement will be required with key stakeholders, the community and iwi.

29. While the exact dates and forms of this engagement have not been finalised it is anticipated that this engagement will involve:

a. Community open days, including open days held in different suburbs.

b. Community surveys through the Bang the Table online consultation tool.

c. Ongoing meetings with key stakeholders.

d. On request, meetings with specific property owners, groups of property owners, and community or interest groups, and

e. Updates on the progress of the District Plan Review through Council’s social media avenues and website, with additional media releases at key stages of the Review.

30. The results of the community engagement will be reported to the subcommittee for direction on selecting a walkable catchment.

Legal Considerations

31. Section 79(1)(c) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) requires local authorities to commence a review of a provision of a district plan if the provision has not been a subject of a review or change in the previous 10 years. Section 79(4) provides scope for local authorities to commence a full review of a district plan. All sections and changes must be reviewed and then the plan be publically notified (79(6)&(7)). Schedule 1 sets out requirements for the preparation, change and review of plans.

32. The National Planning Standards set out standards to which every policy or plan must comply. Chapter 7 requires Local Authorities to either amend their plan or notify a proposed plan within 5 years of the planning standards coming into effect (April 2024).

33. Section 8 of the RMA requires all person exercising functions/powers under it to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

34. As a tier one territorial authority council is required to give effect to the intensification provisions of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development by notifying a proposed plan change no later than August 2022.

Financial Considerations

35. The high level urban form of the city can have implications for infrastructure costs. Further work is required to determine the specifics of this.

36. Options 1, 2, and 3 would be undertaken within the current District Plan Review budget.

Appendices

There are no appendices for this report.

Author: Joseph Jeffries

Senior Environmental Policy Analyst

Reviewed By: Hamish Wesney

Head of District Plan Policy

Approved By: Helen Oram

Director Environment and Sustainability

36 18 May 2021

District Plan Review Subcommittee

20 April 2021

File: (21/632)

Report no: DPRS2021/2/108

Open Space - Zones, Classification of Sites and Engagement

Purpose of Report

1. This report is to seek direction and confirmation from the subcommittee about the approach for the open space chapter in preparing the draft district plan with regards to:

· the number and types of zones to be used for open space areas;

· the policy around the assessment of sites into different open space zones;

· the special treatment of certain sites; and

· an approach to engagement with mana whenua and private landowners for sites currently within recreation activity areas that may be considered for an open space zoning

Recommendations

That the Subcommittee:

(1) receives the information in the report;

(2) directs officers to undertake classification of open space sites in accordance with the proposed Option 5, being into the [General] Open Space Zone, the Natural Open Space Zone, the Sport and Active Recreation Zone, and identifying those sites for which further engagement or special treatment is recommended. This classification would be used to prepare the draft District Plan; and

(3) directs officers to engage with stakeholders identified for existing recreation activity area sites identified as having special issues. This engagement would include mana whenua and landowners of sites that are not in public ownership.

For the reasons that it makes the best use of Council’s existing information about open space areas, it is consistent with existing council plans, policies, and strategies, and it provides an approach that, when the notified district plan takes legal effect, will give a greater practical level of certainty to the community about activities in open space areas.

Background

Open space in Lower Hutt

2. Lower Hutt has numerous areas of open space within its borders that provide opportunities for recreation, conservation, sports, community activities, and to provide ecosystem services such as protecting our water catchments. There are more than 22,000 hectares of land used as reserve, conservation, parkland, or in privately owned recreation zoned sites.

3. The vast majority of this land is within the Belmont, East Harbour, and Wainuiomata regional parks and the Remutaka Forest Park, which between them account for slightly over half of Lower Hutt’s total land area. However, the majority of individual open space locations are managed by Hutt City Council and for most Lower Hutt residents their closest reserve will be a Hutt City Council managed site.

4. Open space areas include beaches, playgrounds, gardens, sports fields, stands of native bush, golf courses, and cemeteries, and are home to a wide range of indoor facilities including museums, pools, and libraries.

5. Different land is managed for different purposes, including environmental values, recreational opportunity, aesthetic values, cultural values, or for flood control. Often land will be managed for multiple purposes.

What is covered by open space?

6. Open Space Zones are a topic whose exact scope will need to be decided by Council. The term comes from the National Planning Standards, and is similar to the Recreation Activity Areas in the operative district plan.

7. Open Space Zones could be used to manage some combination of:

· Public parks and reserves, including cemeteries and regional parks

· Public sector conservation land

· Indoor community and recreational facilities on public land

· Undeveloped public land with no specific purpose

· Private sports and recreational club facilities

· Land that is co-managed by local or central government and mana whenua (eg the Parangārahu Lakes and the harbour islands)

8. “Open Space” in this context does not include private household open space such as yards and gardens, landscaped areas around commercial premises, and so on.

9. Public open space is primarily managed by the city council, regional council, and government through management plans directing operations and appropriate activities based on the purpose of each reserve. Open space land is protected from development in the long term through status under the Reserves Act or Conservation Act.

10. The RMA is a regulatory tool and controls activities, development, and land use. Use of this regulatory tool should be complementary with those management plans, not contradictory.

Operative district plan approach

11. The current District Plan approach mostly dates from when the current plan became operative in 2003, although provisions relating to flood control for the Hutt River were inserted in 2006, and numerous plan changes have rezoned land out of the Recreation zones.

12. The current District Plan manages open space through a variety of zones, but chiefly:

· Passive Recreation

· General Recreation

· River Recreation

· Special Recreation – [Pito-one] Foreshore

· Special Recreation – Hutt Park Visitor Accommodation

· Special Recreation – Seaview Marina

· Rural (particularly for regional parks and DoC conservation land)

13. Each zone balances managing amenity, character, and conservation values with controls on development, particularly the built environment. The scope for activities is fairly broad and reflects that the types of activities are generally controlled in management plans.

14. The objectives for each of the Recreation zones have common themes. These can be summarised as:

· Protecting the character of open space areas

· Protecting natural and ecological values

· Protecting public access to rivers and margins

· Protecting the amenity of any adjoining residential areas

· Protecting steeper and more heavily vegetated land from intensive use and development, particularly to protect its visual amenity

· Recognising the value of Regional Parks

· Manage non-recreational activities to ensure they do not detract from conservation and recreational values

· Control the siting, size, and design of buildings, and limiting their number, to protect the amenity of open space areas

· Avoiding flood hazards and protecting flood control structures and the flood carrying capacity of rivers

15. Provisions support these objectives by providing for recreational and ancillary activities of a certain scale as permitted activities, and requiring resource consent for larger scale activities.

16. The operative district plan also supports the adequate provision of open space for the needs of the community by requiring financial and/or in-kind contributions when land is subdivided and developed.

Policy direction

17. There is substantial existing city, regional, and national direction for the management of recreation and conservation in open space areas.

18. City and national direction has not substantially changed in the lifetime of the plan. Regional direction has changed to be more similar to existing city direction for natural and conservation areas, by phasing out commercial forestry and agriculture activities.

19. Hutt City Council has provided substantial direction for the management of parks in the Reserves Strategic Direction, the Leisure and Wellbeing Strategy, the Integrated Community Facilities Plan, and the various reserves management plans, as well as various other more area- or subject-specific plans such as Go Outside and Play and the Urban Forest Plan.

20. Our assessment is that the key resource management issues for this topic are:

· Providing for recreational, educational, and leisure activities

· Whether to provide for additional activities beyond those

· Visual character and amenity, including effects on neighbours and the streetscape

· External effects (e.g. transport network, hazards, stormwater management)

· Protecting and enhancing biodiversity and other natural environmental values

· Ensuring tangata whenua activities are provided for

Discussion

Scope

21. Some matters are deeply connected to open space areas and are dealt with to some degree in the various Recreation Activity Areas at present, but are the subject of their own reports and are not dealt with significantly in this report, being:

· the Seaview Marina

· public access to lakes, rivers, and the coast

· activities that occur on the surface of water (currently handled within the River Recreation zone)

· indigenous biodiversity

· natural character

· coastal character

· significant features and landscapes

· temporary activities

· natural hazards (flooding)

· historic heritage

22. This separation of topics does not preclude these matters being treated differently in open space areas to other areas in the District Plan.

23. This report does not cover the provision or funding of new open space areas, for example in response to residential growth. This is handled within the topics Urban Form and Development, Subdivision, and Financial Contributions.

Regulatory approach

24. Open space zones, except for privately owned sites, will have their activities managed through management plans and the decisions of the relevant level of government.

25. However, the District Plan can also regulate activities, and this allows a more “level playing field” between the assessment of activities on private land and in public open space, and also gives a greater degree of long-term predictability to the community about what type and scale of activities will occur in open spaces.

26. The District Plan thus can take several broad approaches:

a) To provide relatively liberal provisions that apply in all open space areas, and rely on methods outside the district plan to manage environmental and social effects of activities in open space.

b) To provide relatively generic and discretionary provisions that apply in all open space areas, and rely on case-by-case resource consent assessments of the scale and nature of activities to be provided for in different situations.

c) To provide more detailed rules about activities that are anticipated in open space areas, which would vary by area.

27. These options are not absolute, but represent a trade-off between directions. A point can be selected between these options.

28. The discretionary approach in (b) is likely to have high administrative costs and provide little extra certainty to the community, and so we recommend an approach that is somewhere along the spectrum from the permissive approach in (a) to the detailed approach in (c).

29. The point along this spectrum and level of detail depends on the degree to which Council desires to give certainty to the community.

Zones

30. If different spatial areas are to receive separate treatment, the primary way to achieve this is through the use of zones.

31. A more fine-grained spatial differentiation can be made through the use of overlays, precincts, and site-specific controls. These would allow the district plan to modify the policy approach and provision in specific areas.

32. The purpose of having different spatial approaches would be to apply different provisions in different areas; particularly different rules for permitted activities, but also potentially different objectives and policies.

33. Accordingly, a greater level of detail about activities in the plan would suggest using a larger number of different zones; a more generic and permissive policy approach would suggest using fewer zones.

34. The Open Space zones provided by the National Planning Standards are:

	Natural Open Space Zone	Areas where the natural environment is retained and activities, buildings and other structures are compatible with the characteristics of the zone.
	[General] Open Space Zone	Areas used predominantly for a range of passive and active recreational activities, along with limited associated facilities and structures.
	Sport and Active Recreation Zone	Areas used predominantly for a range of indoor and outdoor sport and active recreational activities and associated facilities and structures.

35. Some open space areas could also be managed using other zones, and examples could include the Māori Purpose Zone, centres zones such as City Centre or Neighbourhood Centre, or Mixed Use.

36. Some open space zones are also currently managed as rural zones in the operative district plan. This approach may suit sites that mix recreation with grazing, horticulture, and forestry. However, the only such areas in Lower Hutt at present are the Belmont and East Harbour regional parks, where the regional council is phasing out these rural activities.

Classification of sites

37. Officers have gathered available information on existing recreation-zoned land and other public land, through desktop study and site visits. This information includes but is not limited to the work done to date by the Parks and Recreation unit on classifying council-owned open space into the parks categories recommended by Recreation Aotearoa (formerly NZ Recreation Association).

38. This analysis has found that the bulk of the open space land managed by Hutt City Council, Wellington Regional Council, and the Department of Conservation easily meets the description of one or a combination of the zones in the National Planning Standards given above.

39. Where land is not currently zoned for recreation, has no official Reserves Act or Conservation Act purpose, and is either not owned by Hutt City Council, or held for a purpose other than providing parks and reserves, we recommend that the land is not managed with an open space zoning, and that the zoning for that land be considered in another more relevant topic.

40. Examples of classifications of sites into each of these three zones are given in Appendix 1.

Sites with specific issues

41. Some other sites currently zoned Recreation present issues that mean while they may be suitable to manage as open space; they do not naturally fit into one of the National Planning Standards open space zones. These other sites present issues where further engagement or assessment is needed to decide on the approach.

42. The major categories of such sites identified are:

· Community facilities where the number and scale of buildings and activities is much more extensive than for parks in general.

· Major facilities that periodically attract large numbers of visitors or that host large-scale temporary activities.

· Public land that is home to tangata whenua-operated activities.

· Sites that are public land but are associated with nearby Māori land.

· Sites co-managed by mana whenua

· Privately-owned land

· A variety of other one-off situations

43. The National Planning Standards also provide for the use of special-purpose zones, precincts, overlays, and site-specific controls. These can be used to vary or augment the provisions of a zone as they apply in particular places.

44. Approaches could include using a zone other than open space, applying site-specific provisions, a precinct, or an overlay, or it could turn out that the site can adequately be managed using a standard open space zone. There may also be other options suggested by stakeholders during engagement.

45. Decisions on the approach for these sites can be made at a later date after engagement and when the impact of provisions on particular sites is known.

46. These sites are listed in Appendix 2.

Options

47. Officers have sufficient information to begin classifying the majority of open space sites into proposed zones to be included in the draft district plan, once the Subcommittee confirms an approach for management of open space in the plan.

48. All suggested approaches involve the use of at least one Open Space zone, as it is considered that the unique resource management issues and range of activities in public open space are impractical to manage in a zone designed for any other purpose.

49. The treatment of sites with specific issues (as identified above) will be presented to the Subcommittee to be decided once officers have engaged with affected parties.

Option 1: Single General Open Space Zone with permissive approach, relying primarily on methods other than the district plan

50. This approach would apply the [General] Open Space Zone to all open space sites, and continue with similar objectives and policies to those common across the existing District Plan and other council plans, policies, and strategies. However, the rules would treat the broadest range of open space activities as permitted, with activity standards that would allow most activities in most locations to proceed without resource consent.

51. All activities in public open space would be managed for their environmental effects in large part through methods other than the district plan.

Assessment of Option 1
Advantages	· Simplifies District Plan review · Reduces administrative workload for Hutt City Council and the regional council
Disadvantages	· Would require a separate approach for managing effects on privately owned sites · Less certainty for the community about which activities are expected on open space sites · Would still require operators of activity on open space to undertake some level of in-house assessment of the effects of proposals
Conclusion	Not recommended

Option 2: Single General Open Space Zone with discretionary approach, relying primarily on resource consents

52. This approach would apply the [General] Open Space Zone to all open space sites, and continue with similar objectives and policies to those common across the existing District Plan and other council plans, policies, and strategies. However, rules would permit a relatively limited level of development and resource consents would be required for all but the most limited of projects.

53. All activities would be assessed for their environmental effects primarily through resource consents, with similar processes applied regardless of location.

54. This is not recommended due to the administrative workload and extra cost it would create, the lack of certainty it would give to the community, and the risk that when consents for large-scale activities in open space are routine, the areas that the community may particularly value will receive no additional scrutiny.

Assessment of Option 2
Advantages	· Simplifies District Plan review · In principle, provides a more thorough assessment of individual projects
Disadvantages	· Would be disproportionately burdensome for privately owned sites, compared to likely approach in other zones · High compliance and administrative costs associated with a high number of resource consents · Less certainty for the community about which activities are expected on open space sites, as the one-size-fits-all approach means any site could be considered for any project · Substantial increase in workload and cost for Hutt City Council and regional council undertaking operations
Conclusion	Not recommended

Multi-zone approaches

55. These approaches would continue with similar objectives and policies to those common across the existing District Plan and other council plans, policies, and strategies. However, multiple zones would be used and sites would be allocated between them. Each zone would have different emphasis in policies and objectives.

56. In general, the zones would anticipate types of uses and a level of activity consistent with the descriptions of those zones in the National Planning Standards (see paragraph 34 above).

57. The different zone provisions could anticipate a higher or lower level of land development, a larger or narrower range of activities, and greater or lesser protection for natural landscapes and native vegetation (including regenerating vegetation).

58. Within these options there are choices for the extent to which precincts, overlays, and site-specific controls are used for sites with particular issues. For the most part, these choices will need to be made at a site-by-site level and should not be made until engagement has occurred.

59. However, at a strategic level, the Subcommittee can decide whether the multi-zone approach would use:

· Option 3: the [General] Open Space Zone and Natural Open Space Zone, or

· Option 4: the [General] Open Space Zone and Sport and Active Recreation Zone, or

· Option 5 (recommended): all three zones: [General] Open Space, Natural Open Space, and Sport and Active Recreation.

60. Managing Open Space primarily through multiple zones reduces the administrative burden of requiring consents in those open space areas where large-scale development and activities are anticipated, while providing more scrutiny in areas identified as needing additional protection.

61. The use of a separate Natural Open Space Zone would allow a greater level of discretion and scrutiny for those sites with particular landscape, character, or other values suggesting development should be more carefully managed. It would also signal and protect sites that do not currently consist of significant areas of indigenous biodiversity but where Council intends to enhance or regenerate the biodiversity values.

62. However, with or without a Natural Open Space Zone, existing significant landscapes, areas of natural and coastal character, and areas of significant indigenous biodiversity that occur on public land can be identified in overlays that would apply to any open space zone.

63. The use of a separate Sport and Active Recreation Zone would signal those sites where Council intends to allow or promote larger or more intensively used recreational and community facilities, and would provide more certainty to the community about where such facilities are anticipated.

64. However, as an alternative, sites where larger-scale community facilities are anticipated could be developed through resource consents.

Assessment of features in common for Options 3-5
Advantages	· Makes best use of existing information held by Council · Greater level of consistency with Council’s existing Reserves Strategy, which anticipates different management of activities on different sites · Provides greater certainty to the community about the activities anticipated in different open space areas · Allows the resource consenting function of council to be targeted to assessing those projects that carry the largest risk of unanticipated adverse effects · A multi-zone approach also provides the maximum flexibility if the detail of provisions and further engagement suggests a change in approach, as a multi-zone approach can be more easily converted to a single zone than vice-versa
Disadvantages	· Requires assessment of each site (although much of this work has already been done) · Requires a slightly greater level of direct stakeholder engagement · Results in a somewhat more complex district plan with more zones · As the use of sites changes in future, may require plan changes to rezone sites from one open space zone to another, which would not be required with a single-zone approach
Assessment of using Natural Open Space Zone (Options 3 and 5)
Advantages	· Allows Council to identify and protect areas of landscape value, character value, or natural values, that may not reach the level of significance that would justify protections as a significant landscape or significant area of indigenous biodiversity · Allows Council to identify areas where it seeks to regenerate or enhance native vegetation that current does not exist or is not significant · Recognises the amenity significance of recreation in a natural setting
Disadvantages	· More restrictions on the use of land, which may inhibit future uses of the land if they are inconsistent with the objectives for a Natural Open Space Zone · Requires assessment of sites
Assessment of using Sport and Active Recreation Zone (Options 4 and 5)
Advantages	· Allows Council to identify areas where it wants to provide for sport and recreation activities with a higher intensity of use, and provide a more streamlined consenting system and policy support for larger-scale recreation facilities · Provides a greater degree of certainty to the community that these locations are where the largest-scale recreation facilities will be located · Recognises the city-wide and region-wide significance of Lower Hutt’s sports and recreation facilities
Disadvantages	· Existence of such a zone may be misinterpreted in consent processes to imply that sports and active recreation facilities are to be discouraged outside the zone · Requires assessment of sites
Conclusion
	The recommended approach is Option 5.

Climate Change Impact and Considerations

65. The matters addressed in this report have been considered in accordance with the process set out in Council’s Climate Change Considerations Guide.

66. Management of the city’s open space networks through the District Plan has the potential to affect the city’s net emissions both positively and negatively. For example rules on vegetation can help ensure carbon sinks are provided for and maintained.

67. Open space areas are also a key part of managing natural hazards, particularly flooding, by acting as flood storage and natural buffer zones. Our changing climate and increased risks from these hazards reinforces this importance.

68. Climate change mitigation and adaptation will be considered as a key part of the review.

69. The impact of specific district plan provisions on climate change cannot be considered until those district plan provisions are drafted and assessed.

Consultation

70. A significant number of sites present specific issues that will require further stakeholder engagement before presenting options to the Subcommittee. Particularly relevant stakeholders are mana whenua, some operators of activities on public land under leases and concessions, and private landowners of currently recreation-zoned sites.

71. All options include the existing engagement planned for the wider district plan review, as well as engagement through the draft district plan and formal submissions process.

Legal Considerations

72. Council is required under s79(1)(c) of the Resource Management Act 1991 to commence a review of any provisions of the district plan that have not been reviewed or changed within the last 10 years. This time period has already elapsed for parts of the Recreation Activity Area chapters.

73. Part 2, Part 5, and Schedule 1 of the RMA set out the requirements for Council to consider when reviewing and changing its plan. This includes being in accordance with the national planning standards and national policy statements, giving effect to the regional policy statement, and having regard to management plans and strategies prepared under other legislation (e.g. the Reserves Act).

74. Section 85 of the RMA, and Environment Court case law (e.g. Golf (2012) Ltd v Thames-Coromandel District Council [2019] NZEnvC 112) provide that privately-owned land can be zoned for open space purposes under some circumstances, provided that the land must still be capable of “reasonable use”. Open space zoning cannot be used to prevent all development on privately-owned land against the owners or occupiers’ wishes.

Financial Considerations

75. All of the discussed options can be carried out within the existing budget for the District Plan review.

76. We are unable to provide specific estimates, but in general, the greater the degree of discretion and the more restrictive the rules that apply to open space, the greater the cost to Council to undertake its activities in future under the plan. This is due to the greater number of resource consent applications required, the greater complexity of those applications, and the higher the costs involved in complying with the consent conditions.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Examples of classification of open space sites into the zones of the National Planning Standards	37
2 ⇩	Sites needing further engagement or special treatment	43

Author: Stephen Davis

Policy Planner

Reviewed By: Hamish Wesney

Head of District Plan Policy

Approved By: Helen Oram

Director Environment and Sustainability

Attachment 2

Sites needing further engagement or special treatment

Name	Current Zoning	Assessment
Hikoikoi Reserve - Lions & McEwan Parks	Recreation	Does not fit easily into National Planning Standards categories
Williams Park (incl. Days Bay Playcentre)	Recreation	Does not fit easily into National Planning Standards categories
Moera Reserve Community Centre	Recreation	Does not fit easily into National Planning Standards categories
Woburn Park and Ride	Recreation	Does not fit easily into National Planning Standards categories
Hutt Recreation Ground	Recreation	Does not fit easily into National Planning Standards categories
Huia Pool	Recreation	Does not fit easily into National Planning Standards categories
Odlin Gallery	Recreation	Does not fit easily into National Planning Standards categories
Waterloo Playcentre	Recreation	Does not fit easily into National Planning Standards categories
Waterloo Reserve	Recreation	Does not fit easily into National Planning Standards categories
Civic/Riddiford Gardens, War Memorial Library, Administration Building, etc.	Recreation	Does not fit easily into National Planning Standards categories
Court House Lawn / Crooked Elm	Recreation	Does not fit easily into National Planning Standards categories
Dowse Square	Recreation	Does not fit easily into National Planning Standards categories
Dowse Museum	Recreation	Does not fit easily into National Planning Standards categories
Epuni Community Centre	Recreation	Does not fit easily into National Planning Standards categories
Mitchell Park (part)	Recreation	Does not fit easily into National Planning Standards categories
15 Seddon Street	Recreation	Does not fit easily into National Planning Standards categories
Walter Mildenhall Park Regional Bowls Centre	Recreation	Does not fit easily into National Planning Standards categories
Walter Mildenhall Park	Recreation	Does not fit easily into National Planning Standards categories
Naenae Olympic Indoor Pool	Recreation	Does not fit easily into National Planning Standards categories
Taita Community Hub	Recreation	Does not fit easily into National Planning Standards categories
Taine and Tocker Street Reserve	Recreation	Does not fit easily into National Planning Standards categories
Taita Community Trust and Pomare Multicultural Resource Centre	Residential	Does not fit easily into National Planning Standards categories
Between 198 and 200 Eastern Hutt Road	Recreation	Does not fit easily into National Planning Standards categories
Stokes Valley Indoor Pool	Recreation	Does not fit easily into National Planning Standards categories
Silverstream Landfill	Recreation	Does not fit easily into National Planning Standards categories
Avalon Park	Recreation	Does not fit easily into National Planning Standards categories
Fraser Park	Recreation	Does not fit easily into National Planning Standards categories
Roy Nelson Neighbourhood Park	Recreation	Does not fit easily into National Planning Standards categories
Petone Recreation Ground	Various	Does not fit easily into National Planning Standards categories
Petone Station Car Park	Recreation	Does not fit easily into National Planning Standards categories
Wainuiomata Clean Fill (small part), next to wastewater station	Recreation	Does not fit easily into National Planning Standards categories
Hutt Valley District Court	Recreation	Does not fit easily into National Planning Standards categories
16 Knights Road	Recreation	Does not fit easily into National Planning Standards categories
WEL cabinet near Naenae Park	Recreation	Does not fit easily into National Planning Standards categories
Hutt Valley Badminton Association	Recreation	Does not fit easily into National Planning Standards categories
Pito-one Foreshore	Recreation	Does not fit easily into National Planning Standards categories & engagement with Mana Whenua needed
Hutt Park	Recreation	Does not fit easily into National Planning Standards categories, engagement with occupiers needed, special provisions for campground needed
Mākaro Island	Rural	Engagement with Mana Whenua needed
Matiu (Somes) Island	Rural	Engagement with Mana Whenua needed
Mokopuna Island	Rural	Engagement with Mana Whenua needed
Hikoikoi Reserve (Nga Tekau centre)	Recreation	Engagement with Mana Whenua needed
Honiana Te Puni Reserve	Recreation	Engagement with Mana Whenua needed
Wainuiomata Marae (part)	Recreation	Engagement with Mana Whenua needed
East Harbour Regional Park (area around Parangarahu Lakes)	Recreation	Engagement with Mana Whenua needed
Owhiti Urupa (part used as Car Park)	Recreation	Engagement with Mana Whenua needed
Te Whiti Park (Waiwhetu Medical Centre, etc.)	Recreation	Engagement with Mana Whenua needed
Te Maori Cultural Centre	Various	Engagement with Mana Whenua needed
Waiwhetu Marae (part)	Various	Engagement with Mana Whenua needed
Samoan Baptist Church of Wainuiomata and the Girl Guides Association of NZ - WOA Branch (next to fire station)	Recreation	Engagement with occupiers needed
Wainuiomata fire station including Neville Twort Park	Recreation	Engagement with occupiers needed
Muritai Tennis Club	Recreation	Engagement with occupiers needed
105 Wainuiomata Road	Recreation	Engagement with owner needed
22B Woodvale Grove	Recreation	Engagement with owner needed
8 Cambridge Tce	Recreation	Engagement with owner needed
Hutt Bowling Club	Recreation	Engagement with owner needed
12 Shaftesbury Grove	Recreation	Engagement with owner needed
30 Shaftesbury Grove	Recreation	Engagement with owner needed
17 Rakau Grove	Recreation	Engagement with owner needed
15 Reynolds Bach Drive (etc)	Recreation	Engagement with owner needed
Boulcotts Farm Heritage Golf Club	Recreation	Engagement with owner needed
Avalon Tennis Club	Recreation	Engagement with owner needed
Korokoro Cemetery	Recreation	Engagement with owner needed
127 Western Hutt Road	Recreation	Engagement with owner needed
Belmont Regional Park (pasture areas outside Kilmister Block)	Recreation	Further engagement with GWRC needed
Keith George Memorial Park	Recreation	Further engagement with UHCC needed
Seaview Marina	Recreation	Handled in separate topic
Kilmister Block	Rural	Handled in separate topic
Gravel extraction site at Hutt River mouth	Recreation	Will require special treatment of gravel extraction

Note: this does not include sites included in the assessment that:

· Are not currently zoned Recreation, are not legal reserve, and are not currently used for recreation or conservation

· Minor boundary adjustments to avoid split zonings

56 18 May 2021

District Plan Review Subcommittee

27 April 2021

File: (20/1175)

Report no: DPRS2021/2/109

Notable Trees

Purpose of Report

1. To present a range of options and seek direction from the subcommittee on how to proceed with the drafting of the Notable Tree chapter of the Draft District Plan

Recommendations

That the Subcommittee:

(1) considers all options outlined in the report; and

(2) identifies a preferred option, outlined in the options section of the report.

Background

2. Trees can be valued highly by the community for many reasons, including visual amenity, shade, shelter, wildlife habitat, food, carbon sequestration, pollutant absorption, runoff control and soil stabilization.

3. Under the District Plan, Notable Trees are recognised for their heritage, cultural and amenity value.

4. The current District Plan includes a schedule of 145 Notable Trees. About half of these trees are located on private land while the other half are on Council or publically owned land.

5. All current Notable Trees have been formally assessed by a qualified Arborist using the Standard Tree Evaluation Method (STEM) (see Appendix 1 for summary of STEM and an example of a STEM assessment).

6. Trees are listed in the District Plan if they meet the following:

a. Assessed to have a STEM score of 120 or higher.

b. Permission for listing the Notable Tree in the District Plan was provided by the tree owner (land owner) at the time of the plan change process.

7. The Notable Tree chapter was previously reviewed in 2014 through Plan Change 36.

8. In reviewing PC36, Council used a campaign called ‘Great Hutt Trees’ to seek public nominations for potential Notable Trees. All nominations were assessed against STEM for potential listing.

9. During the plan change review process, Council made the following relevant decisions:

a. No tree would be listed in the District Plan without the permission of the land owner at the time of plan change.

b. Council fully pays for all maintenance of notable trees

10. The District Plan Subcommittee has sought an assessment into potential changes to the general approach to the Notable Tree chapter to better understand options for the Draft District Plan, and to provide direction for this chapter.

11. This paper presents a range of potential changes to the current approach and a recommendation to the District Plan Subcommittee.

Statutory Context

12. Section 6(f) of the Resource Management Act states that the protection of historic heritage is a matter of national importance and Section 7(c) states that particular regard must be given to the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values.

13. The RMA has specific requirements in terms of making rules for protecting trees in urban areas. Section 76 (4A- D) of the RMA states a rule may only prohibit or restrict the felling, trimming, damaging or removal of a tree, in an Urban Environment Allotment, if the tree is described, or the allotment is specifically described, in a schedule in a plan. Therefore, if the tree is not specifically identified, effects on the tree cannot be managed through rules in the District. ‘Urban Environment Allotments’ are defined as an allotment:

a. that is no greater than 4,000m²; and

b. that is connected to a reticulated water supply system and a reticulated sewerage system; and

c. on which there is a building used for industrial or commercial purposes or as a dwellinghouse; and

d. that is not reserve (within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Reserves Act 1977) or subject to a conservation management plan or conservation management strategy prepared in accordance with the Conservation Act 1987 or the Reserves Act 1977.

14. The Regional Policy Statement does not provide specific policy direction for the protection of Notable Trees but does provide general direction for the protection of historic, cultural and amenity values.

15. In terms of Council policy, the Urban Forest Plan sets policy for management of trees on Council owned land. The plan includes specific policies for maintaining and enhancing trees, particularly those of value. The concepts promoted in the Urban Forest Plan will influence the District Plan review for Notable Trees.

The current approach

16. Under the current District Plan, Council seeks permission for protection of Notable Trees (voluntary approach), uses STEM and a STEM threshold of 120, and takes full responsibility for trimming and removal of Notable Trees.

17. The District Plan requires resource consent when undertaking a number of activities that may damage or destroy a Notable Trees (such as trimming, removal or land use in close proximity to a tree).

18. However, resource consent is not required for a number of activities such as trimming or removal of a tree where the tree threatens life or property or trimming is for protecting the health of the tree, if the activity is undertaken by Council.

Key resource management issues

Identification, maintenance and protection will prevent damage and loss to Notable Trees

19. Notable trees contribute to amenity and character values in Lower Hutt and are a link to the City’s past. The identification, maintenance and protection of Notable Trees will help to ensure these values are maintained.

20. Notable Trees that are not identified and scheduled in the District Plan are at threat of being damaged or lost.

21. This issue is particularly important because, unless specifically identified, the District Plan cannot manage effects on trees in Urban Environment Allotments (as defined above).

Identification and protection of Notable Trees can limit development potential

22. Development potential can be constrained if rules restrict the removal of, and activities that may damage, Notable Trees.

23. Restrictions on activities that relate to Notable Trees could influence activities and development on the property of the Notable Trees as they generally cannot adversely impact on the tree without resource consent.

Discussion on current approach

Operational cost for Notable Tree maintenance

24. Council’s current policy is to take responsibility for the trimming and removal of Notable Trees on both private and public land, to protect the health of the trees and people and property.

25. Council contracts arborists to undertake annual maintenance checks of all Notable Trees on both public and private land. Contractors then identify works required to protect the health and form of the tree.

26. This policy ensures landowners do not have to bear the maintenance costs of protecting trees that provide value to the city.

27. However, the cost of managing Notable Trees often exceeds the annual allocated budget of $20,000.

28. This exceedance is due to the allocated budget not being increased after additional trees were added to the Notable Trees register in the previous PC36 process.

29. Additional budget will be required to cover the cost of tree maintenance, particularly if more trees are required for protection.

The voluntary approach

30. The voluntary approach to Notable Tree protection gives landowners a choice as to whether or not a Notable Tree is protected at the time of the plan change. This approach allows landowners to choose whether trees on their property are protected. However, it means significant Notable Trees may not be scheduled and protected through the District Plan.

31. Through the previous process, 254 trees were assessed to meet the STEM threshold of 120 or higher. However, approximately 109 trees were not identified in the District Plan schedule due not receiving a response from landowners or landowner support not being provided.

32. Some landowners will and do protect significant trees voluntarily. However, there is uncertainty and a risk that trees identified as Notable Trees may not be scheduled and protected, and could be lost or damaged.

STEM and the STEM threshold

33. The Standard Tree Evaluation Method is currently used to assess Notable Trees (see Appendix 1 for a summary of STEM and an example of a STEM assessment). The method is nationally recognised and is used by about 40 Councils around New Zealand.

34. The 120 threshold is high enough to ensure trees with significant value are identified, but is not too low so that land use is unnecessarily restricted through protection of less significant trees.

Options for the Draft District Plan

35. Four options have been identified for the Draft District Plan.

36. Each option is described, along with an analysis of benefits and costs.

Option 1: Status Quo – Roll over

37. This option would see a continuation of the current approach under the District Plan.

38. The objectives, policies and rules would largely roll over into the draft district plan chapter.

39. Officers would commission an Arborist to undertake a STEM review of the existing schedule of Notable Trees to confirm they still met the threshold for a Notable Tree.

40. This option would not involve a formal public nomination process but would process nominations, if received, through the formal submission process.

41. Additional budget is likely required, particularly if more trees are added to the schedule.

Benefits:

· Continuation of current approach will be a simple process.

· Landowners retain the choice regarding trees being scheduled.

· Landowners do not have to bear the maintenance costs of tree protection.

· Least time and resource required from the District Plan team and Arborist.

Costs

· Some significant trees on private property that meet the STEM threshold may not be scheduled in and protected by the District Plan if permission is not provided by the property. This could include those trees that are listed in the existing schedule.

Option 2: Status Quo, plus Nomination Process

42. This option would be similar to Option 1. It would involve:

a. Roll over of the current overall approach.

b. Roll over of the existing objectives, policies and rules.

c. Commission Arborist to STEM review existing schedule of trees.

43. In addition, this option would invite the public and other stakeholders to nominate trees for potential assessment and inclusion in the new schedule. The Arborist would also undertake a review of the city wide assessment to nominate potential trees.

44. If additional trees are protected through this process, additional budget will be needed to enable Council to cover the maintenance costs of additional Notable Trees.

Benefits

· Continuation of current approach will be a simple process.

· Landowners retain choice on whether Notable Tree is scheduled.

· Landowners don’t bear the maintenance cost of tree maintenance and protection.

· More trees are likely to be nominated through public nomination process and through the Arborist assessment.

· Minimal time and resource required from the District Plan team and Arborist.

Costs

· Some significant trees on private property that meet the STEM threshold may not be scheduled in and protected by the District Plan if permission is not provided. This could include those trees identified through the nomination process or those that are listed in the existing schedule.

· Council and community bear the maintenance cost.

· If more trees are scheduled, additional funding will be required to provide support to landowners for maintenance costs.

Option 3: Change approach

45. This option would change the plan to require mandatory listing and protection of trees identified as having a STEM score of 120 or higher. This option would not give landowners a choice as to whether or not a Notable Tree is scheduled.

46. However, council would continue to take responsibility for the trimming and removal of Notable Trees.

47. The STEM system and the STEM threshold would also be retained.

48. The objectives, policies and rules would largely be retained but minor amendments would be required to provide for the overall approach.

49. An Arborist would undertake a STEM review of the current schedule.

50. The public and other stakeholders would be invited to nominate trees for assessment and potential protection. An Arborist would assess nominations and undertake a city wide assessment for potential trees.

51. If additional trees are protected through this process, additional budget will be needed to enable Council to cover the costs of Notable Tree maintenance.

52. Engagement with the community and other stakeholders would be undertaken, especially with affected landowners. Officers would report back to the Subcommittee on the outcome of engagement.

Benefits

· Certainty to Council and the community that trees which meet the STEM threshold will be scheduled and protected.

· Landowners will not have to bear the cost of Notable Tree maintenance.

· Gives effect to statutory requirements.

Costs

· A change to the overall approach will be more complicated than other options and require more time and resource from officers.

· Landowners no longer have a choice to whether or not their tree is scheduled in the District Plan. Potential limitations on use and development of land.

· Additional funding will be required if additional trees are scheduled.

Option 4: Change overall approach, plus funding change

53. This option would be similar to option 3:

a. A mandatory approach would be adopted

b. The STEM system and the STEM threshold would be retained.

c. The objectives, policies and rules would be amended to provide for this overall approach.

d. An Arborist would undertake a STEM review of the current schedule.

54. However, this option would also change the way Council provides support to landowners. This option would replace the annual inspection and maintenance works with a contestable grant fund similar to the Biodiversity Incentive Fund and Heritage Protection Fund. The fund would have an annual budget which landowners could apply to for maintenance works. It is recommended that the budget for this contestable grant fund is the same as the current maintenance budget.

55. Engagement with the community and other stakeholders would be undertaken, especially with affected landowners. Officers would report back to the Subcommittee on the outcome of engagement.

Benefits

· Certainty to Council and the community that trees which meet the STEM threshold will be scheduled and protected.

· Less funding is likely required as the provision of funding would be targeted. The annual cost per tree would likely reduce.

Costs

· A change to the overall approach will be more complicated than other options and require more time and resource from officers.

· Landowners no longer have a choice to whether or not their tree is scheduled in the District Plan. Potential limitations on use and development of land.

· Administrative cost increase for Council to process applications.

· Additional cost for landowners to arrange and lodge applications to apply for funding.

Option 5: Non-regulatory approach

56. Under this option, Council would continue with the voluntary approach and include trees that meet the STEM threshold in the District Plan schedule.

57. Objectives, policies and rules would be amended to not require resource consent for activities that may adversely affect Notable Trees.

58. This option would rely on voluntary protection of Notable Trees and would not require permission from landowners to undertaken work that may adversely affect trees.

59. Council would also change its approach to how support is provided. Council would continue to undertake maintenance works to maintain the health of Notable Trees, but would not pay for removal or activities that may adversely affect the health of trees.

60. This option would not involve a formal public nomination process but would process nominations, if received, through the formal submission process.

61. An arborist would undertake a STEM assessment of Notable Trees of current and nominated trees. Permission will be sought from landowners before a Notable Tree is scheduled.

Benefits

· Landowners retain choice on whether Notable Tree is scheduled.

· Development potential enhanced as there will be no restrictions on Notable Trees.

· Would not require significant time and resource from officers or Arborist.

Costs

· No certainty to council or community regarding protection of trees that meet the STEM threshold as all restrictions on all Notable Trees would be removed.

· Potential loss of Notable Trees or works to Notable Trees which degrade them.

Recommendation for Draft District Plan

62. The subcommittee considers all options outlined in the report.

63. Identify a preferred option for the Notable Trees chapter of the draft District Plan.

Climate Change Impact and Considerations

64. The matters addressed in this report have been considered in accordance with the process set out in Council’s Climate Change Considerations Guide.

65. Trees provide a means for carbon sequestration which can mitigate the effects of climate change. The trees identified and protected in the District Plan will mitigate some effects of climate change.

66. At the same time, it is likely that an increase in intense weather events will have adverse effects on Notable Trees.

Consultation

67. General consultation has been undertaken on District Plan review to date. Minimal feedback has been received so far from the public regarding tree protection.

68. The following have been identified as key stakeholders:

· Mana Whenua

· Greater Wellington Regional Council

· Heritage New Zealand

· Royal New Zealand Institute of Horticulture

· Notable Tree landowners

· Community groups (eg East Harbour Environmental Association, Korokoro Environmental Group)

· Wider community

69. Under all options, engagement would initially commence with property owners of notable trees associated with the re-assessment of existing Notable Trees.

70. If Options 2 or 3 were preferred, a public campaign repeating the ‘Great Hutt Trees’ initiative would then occur seeking nominations for new Notable Trees. Engagement would then occur with property owners of nominated trees as part of the assessment of these trees.

71. The outcomes of the engagement would be reported back to the District Plan Review Subcommittee.

Legal Considerations

72. Section 79(1)(c) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) requires that a local authority must commence a review of a provision of a district plan if the provision has not been a subject of a review or change in the previous 10 years. Section 79(4) provides scope for local authorities to commence a full review of a district plan. All sections and changes must be reviewed and then the plan be publically notified (79(6)&(7)). Schedule 1 sets out requirements for the preparation, change and review of plans.

73. The National Planning Standards set out standards to which every policy or plan must comply. Chapter 7 requires Local Authorities to either amend their plan or notify a proposed plan within 5 years of the planning standards coming into effect (April 2024).

74. Section 8 of the RMA requires all person exercising functions/powers under it to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

75. As outlined in the statutory context section above, Section 76 (4A- D) of the RMA states specific requirements on tree protection rules in District Plans.

Financial Considerations

76. All options could be undertaken within the current District Plan Review budget. However, the annual budget for the maintenance of Notable Trees may need to be reviewed depending on the option selected.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Appendix 1 - Basic STEM criteria and example of STEM assessment	57

Author: Benjamin Haddrell

Policy Planner

Author: Cathy McNab

Environmental Policy Analyst

Reviewed By: Hamish Wesney

Head of District Plan Policy

Approved By: Helen Oram

Director Environment and Sustainability

Attachment 1

Appendix 1 - Basic STEM criteria and example of STEM assessment

Basic Standard Tree Evaluation Method (STEM) Criteria for notable trees^{^[1]}

1. Form: The tree should have good form, be reliable in structure and a good example of this species.

2. Occurrence of the Species: how common or rare the tree is within the district, regional and national context.

3. Vitality: the assessment of the health of the tree

4. Function: the physical and ecological functioning and contribution of the tree. This factor also includes recognition of the local adverse effects of the tree.

5. Age: the loss of a mature tree leaves a time lapse before another tree will fulfil similar functions and achieve the same values. This factor also recognises the tree’s natural life expectancy.

6. Stature: the height and canopy spread of a tree can have a significant influence on its visual impact

7. Visibility: the amenity value of the tree and its accessibility to the public.

8. Proximity of Other Trees: the singularity of a tree can be more important than a group of trees.

9. Role in Setting: the visual and spatial qualities surrounding the tree in its setting. Many trees are significant landmarks in the City.

10. Climatic Influence: the influence of a tree on the microclimate, e.g. shade, shelter and temperature control.

11. Feature: trees of exceptional proportions, or tree forms of special interest

12. Historic: the association of the tree with historic events, people and significant periods in the development of the City.

13. Scientific and Botanical: the significance of the tree in a scientific or botanical context, having particular regard to rarity representativeness and endemism. This factor also recognises trees of unusual genetic or morphological form.

APPENDIX 3 – STEM ASSESSMENT EXAMPLE

Lower Hutt - STEM Tree evaluations

Full Tree Evaluation Score Sheet

Date: 17^th May 2015

Location: Riddiford Gardens located outside library and Lower Hutt war memorial.

Assessor: Dave Aitchison (Arbortech Services Ltd)

Total points scored: 159

Species: Podocarpus totara – Totara

Photographs:

Height -12m Spread – 18m Volume formulae – Hemisphere

Background information / Site information/ General comments:

A stand alone tree that is not impacted by neighbouring vegetation. It shows very good form and excellent health with multiple stems developing at 1m and 3m from the base.

A remnant tree that has survived in this location for an estimated 150 yrs.

Condition Evaluation
Points		3	9	15	21	27	Score
Form		Poor	Moderate	Good	Very good	Specimen	21
Occurrence		Predominant	Common	Infrequent	Rare	Very Rare	15
Vigour/Vitality		Poor	Some	Good	Very good	Excellent	27
Function		Minor	Useful	Important	Significant	Major	9
Age (yr)		10yrs. +	20yrs. +	40yrs. +	80yrs.+	100yrs. +	27
Subtotal Points							99

Amenity Evaluation
Points		3	9	15	21	27	Score
Stature (m)		3 to 8	9 to 14	15 to 20	21 to 26	27+	15
Visibility (km)		0.5	1	2	4	8	3
Proximity		Forest	Parkland	Group 10+	Group3+	Solitary	9
Role		Minor	Moderate	Important	Significant	Major	15
Climate		Minor	Moderate	Important	Significant	Major	9
Subtotal Points							51

Notable Evaluation
Recognition		Local	District	Regional	National	International
Points		3	9	15	21	27	Score
Stature	Feature
	Form						3
Historic	Age 100+						3
	Association
	Commemoration
	Remnant						3
	Relict
Scientific	Source
	Endangered
Subtotal Points							9

Total Points							159

71 18 May 2021

District Plan Review Subcommittee

27 April 2021

File: (21/44)

Report no: DPRS2021/2/110

Infrastructure

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to:

a. Inform the District Plan Review Subcommittee on the infrastructure topic of the District Plan Review,

b. Present a range of options for the District Plan Review with regard to infrastructure, and

c. Seek direction from the Subcommittee on how to proceed with the District Plan Review with regard to infrastructure.

Key Points

· The District Plan Review includes a review of the District Plan’s approach on infrastructure.

· Infrastructure is primarily addressed in the current District Plan through Chapter 13: Network Utilities, including the National Grid. Chapter 13 includes objectives and policies that address resource management issues that generally relate to:

o Recognising and providing for the sustainable, secure and efficient use, operation and development of network utilities within the City,

o Ensure the operation, maintenance, upgrading and development of regionally significant network utilities is not compromised by other activities, and

o Managing adverse effects on the environment resulting from the design, location, operation, upgrading and maintenance of network utilities.

· The general approach of the District Plan’s rules on infrastructure is to permit smaller scale network utilities, subject to permitted activity conditions, while requiring resource consent for larger scale network utilities or network utilities in particularly sensitive environments.

· Chapter 13 was reviewed between 2012 and 2016. This review resulted in Plan Change 34: Network Utilities and Renewable Energy Generation, which became operative in 2016.

· There has been little change to the statutory and policy context since Plan Change 34 became operative.

· As Chapter 13 has only been a part of the District Plan since 2016, it has had little opportunity to influence land use in the district. As a result, there is little information on the effectiveness and efficiency of the Chapter. However, there have been some issues with the implementation of the provisions of the Chapter.

· Council officers are seeking direction from the Subcommittee on how the District Plan Review should proceed with regard to infrastructure. The recommended approach is that Council retains the existing objectives, policies and rules, and amends the rules and associated standards, with a focus on regional consistency and addressing outcomes of engagement with network utility operators (Option 2).

Recommendation

That the Subcommittee directs officers to proceed with the District Plan Review with regard to infrastructure through Option 2, retaining the existing objectives and policies of the District Plan, and amending the rules and associated standards, with a focus on regional consistency and addressing outcomes of engagement with network utility operators.

Background

2. The District Plan Review includes a review of the District Plan approach on infrastructure.

3. Under the Resource Management Act 1991, infrastructure means:

(a) pipelines that distribute or transmit natural or manufactured gas, petroleum, biofuel, or geothermal energy:

(b) a network for the purpose of telecommunication as defined in section 5 of the Telecommunications Act 2001:

(c) a network for the purpose of radiocommunication as defined in section 2(1) of the Radiocommunications Act 1989:

(d) facilities for the generation of electricity, lines used or intended to be used to convey electricity, and support structures for lines used or intended to be used to convey electricity, excluding facilities, lines, and support structures if a person—

i. uses them in connection with the generation of electricity for the person’s use; and

ii. does not use them to generate any electricity for supply to any other person:

(e) a water supply distribution system, including a system for irrigation:

(f) a drainage or sewerage system:

(g) structures for transport on land by cycleways, rail, roads, walkways, or any other means:

(h) facilities for the loading or unloading of cargo or passengers transported on land by any means:

(i) an airport as defined in section 2 of the Airport Authorities Act 1966:

(j) a navigation installation as defined in section 2 of the Civil Aviation Act 1990:

(k) facilities for the loading or unloading of cargo or passengers carried by sea, including a port related commercial undertaking as defined in section 2(1) of the Port Companies Act 1988:

(l) anything described as a network utility operation in regulations made for the purposes of the definition of network utility operator in section 166.

4. To date, this has involved reviewing the state of the environment, current policy direction, current approach of the District Plan and the effectiveness and efficiency of the Plan at achieving the Plan’s objectives.

5. Through this report, officers are seeking direction on the approach that the District Plan should proceed with regard to infrastructure.

6. This approach is in contrast to previous reports presented to the Subcommittee, which have sought direction on how the review should be carried out. This different approach is due to the infrastructure chapter being recently reviewed as part of the rolling review and no recent national or regional policy directions relating to infrastructure.

7. This report includes:

a. A summary of the current District Plan approach on infrastructure,

b. The statutory context for infrastructure,

c. The key resource management issues for the Review regarding infrastructure,

d. Options for the District Plan approach on infrastructure, with an evaluation of these options, and

e. A recommended option, with reasons for the recommendation.

8. However, this report does not address existing infrastructure capacity. Issues on infrastructure capacity and whether infrastructure is in place to support development will be addressed through the urban form and development and subdivision topics of the review.

Discussion

Current District Plan and Plan Change 34

9. Infrastructure is primarily addressed in the District Plan through Chapter 13: Network Utilities, including the National Grid. This chapter includes:

· The Plan’s objectives for infrastructure,

· Policies on how these objectives will be implemented, and

· Rules and standards on whether a proposed activity or structure associated with infrastructure is permitted, and if it is not, the resource consenting pathway for the proposed activity/structure.

10. Council commenced a review of Chapter 13 in 2012. This review was completed in 2016.

11. The following resource management issues were identified through that review:

· The benefits of regionally significant network utilities to the City, region and nation need to be recognised and protected.

· Inappropriate subdivision, use and development in the vicinity of regionally significant network utilities may lead to adverse effects including reverse sensitivity effects that have the potential to impact upon the effective and efficient operation, maintenance, upgrading and development of such utilities.

· The key role that network utilities play and the benefits they have needs to be recognised and the technical and operational requirements of the network utility concerned should not be unreasonably restricted. Failing to adequately provide for network utilities may result in the desired level of well-being and quality of life not being achieved within the City.

· The actual and potential adverse environmental effects arising from network utilities need to be managed.

12. The review resulted in Plan Change 34: Network Utilities and Renewable Energy Generation, which became operative in June 2016. This review was a joint process with Upper Hutt City Council. Plan Change 34 included an entirely new Chapter 13, including new objectives, policies and rules for network utilities.

13. Appendix 1 of this report lists the objectives and policies that were added to the Plan through Plan Change 34. In brief, the objectives and policies address:

· Providing for network utilities,

· The benefits of regionally significant network utilities,

· Potential effects of land use and development on network utilities, and

· Potential effects from construction, operation, maintenance and upgrade of network utilities on the surrounding environment.

14. Chapter 13 includes an extensive list of rules for network utilities. The general approach of Chapter 13 is to permit smaller scale network utilities, subject to permitted activity conditions, while requiring resource consent for larger scale network utilities or network utilities in particularly sensitive environments.

15. The permitted activity conditions address:

· Health and safety in relation to radio frequency and radiation,

· Height, size and diameter of network utility structures (including masts, antennas and cabinets),

· Setbacks of network utilities from property boundaries and waterbodies,

· Earthworks and native vegetation clearance,

· Noise, and

· Temporary above ground lines.

16. Where a permitted activity standard is breached, or where an activity is not specifically listed in the rules of the chapter, resource consent is required, generally as either a controlled or restricted discretionary activity.

17. Larger scale network utilities that require resource consent include:

· Above ground electricity transmission lines above 110 kilovolts,

· Transformers, substations and switching stations distributing electricity,

· Underground gas distribution and transmission pipelines at a pressure exceeding 2000 kilopascals,

· Water reservoirs,

· Water and wastewater treatment plants, and

· Construction, alteration or diversions of roads.

18. As mentioned above, network utilities may require resource consent if they would be located in sensitive environments. The sensitive environments include heritage areas, the Landscape Protection Residential Activity Area and parts of the coastal environment.

Effectiveness and Efficiency of Chapter 14A

19. As Chapter 13 has only been a part of the District Plan since June 2016, it has had limited opportunity to influence land use in the district. As a result, there is little information to demonstrate whether the provisions of Chapter 13 have been effective and efficient.

20. However, some issues have been identified with the implementation of the provisions of Chapter 13:

· Some rules in Chapter 13 address activities that are also addressed in the National Environmental Standards for Telecommunication Facilities 2018 (the NESTF). As the NESTF take precedent over rules in the District Plan, these rules in Chapter 13 are redundant.

· It can be unclear what rules should apply to construction and alteration of walkways, cycleways and shared paths, particularly where they are outside of the road corridor.

· The Plan’s definition of Regionally Significant Network Utilities includes roads that are classified in the Plan as Primary and Major District Distributors. However, the road classifications in the Plan have changed, and these categories are no longer in use.

· It can be unclear whether a proposed activity should be considered an upgrade, alteration or maintenance of a network utility.

· Chapter 13 includes a permitted activity standard on earthworks in riparian areas (areas near the banks of rivers and streams). However, there is no indication of the size of the riparian area.

Statutory and Policy Context

21. There has been little change to the statutory and policy context for infrastructure since Plan Change 34 became operative in 2016.

22. Table 1 summarises the key statutory documents for the District Plan Review with regard to infrastructure.

Table 1. Key statutory context for the District Plan Review with regard to infrastructure.

National Policy Statement on Electricity Transmission (NPS-ET)

The NPS-ET sets out the objective and policies to enable the management of the effects of the electricity transmission network under the RMA.

The NPS-ET sets the following objective:

To recognise the national significance of the electricity transmission network by facilitating the operation, maintenance and upgrade of the existing transmission network and the establishment of new transmission resources to meet the needs of present and future generations, while:

· managing the adverse environmental effects of the network; and

· managing the adverse effects of other activities on the network.

The policies of the NPS-ET address:

· Recognition of the national benefits of transmission,

· Managing the environmental effects of transmission,

· Managing the adverse effects of third parties on the transmission network,

· District plan maps

· Long-term strategic planning for transmission assets.

District plans must give effect to the NPS-ET. As the current NPS-ET was in place at the time of Plan Change 34, the current District Plan gives effect to the NPS-ET.

National Policy Statement on Renewable Energy Generation (NPS-REG)

The NPS-REG sets out an objective and policies to enable the sustainable management of renewable electricity generation under the RMA, including renewable electricity generation that meets the definition of infrastructure.

The NPS-REG sets the following objective:

To recognise the national significance of renewable electricity generation activities by providing for the development, operation, maintenance and upgrading of new and existing renewable electricity generation activities, such that the proportion of New Zealand’s electricity generated from renewable energy sources increases to a level that meets or exceeds the New Zealand Government’s national target for renewable electricity generation.

The policies of the NPS-ET address:

· Recognising the benefits of renewable electricity generation activities,

· Acknowledging the practical implications of achieving New Zealand’s target for electricity generation from renewable resources,

· Acknowledging the practical constraints associated with the development, operation, maintenance and upgrading of new and existing renewable electricity generation activities,

· Managing reverse sensitivity effects on renewable electricity generation activities,

· Incorporating provisions for renewable electricity generation activities into regional policy statements and regional and district plans, and

· Enabling identification of renewable electricity generation possibilities.

District plans must give effect to the NPS-REG. As the current NPS-REG was in place at the time of Plan Change 34, the current District Plan gives effect to the NPS-REG.

Regional Policy Statement for the Wellington Region 2013 (the RPS)

The RPS identifies the significant resource management issues for the region and outlines the policies and methods required to achieve the integrated sustainable management of the region’s natural and physical resources.

With regard to infrastructure, the RPS includes objectives and policies that give direction on:

· Recognising the benefits from renewable energy and regionally significant infrastructure,

· Protecting regionally significant infrastructure,

· Recognising the benefits from renewable energy and regionally significant infrastructure, and

· Co-ordinating land use with development and operation of infrastructure.

23. The District Plan Review will also need to take account of:

· The National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020, which includes objectives and policies on integrating land use planning and infrastructure planning,

· Coastal Policy Statement for New Zealand 2010, which includes objectives and policies on land use and development in the coastal environment, including land use and development associated with infrastructure,

· National Environmental Standards on Electricity Transmission Activities, which set nationally consistent rules and standards for high voltage electricity transmissions lines, and

· National Environmental Standard on Telecommunication Facilities, which set nationally consistent rules and standards for telecommunications facilities.

Options

24. Through this report, officers are seeking direction on the approach that the District Plan should proceed with regard to infrastructure.

25. The key considerations that have informed these options are:

· Council commenced a review of Chapter 13 in 2012. This review was completed in 2016.

· The review resulted in Plan Change 34: Network Utilities and Renewable Energy Generation, which became operative in June 2016. Through Plan Change 34, the District Plan was amended to give effect to the national and regional policy statements that existed at the time.

· Through Plan Change 34, which became operative in June 2016, the current objectives, policies and rules of Chapter 13 were deemed to be appropriate.

· There has been little change to the statutory and policy framework for the District Plan approach on infrastructure since Plan Change 34 became operative.

· As Chapter 13 is a relatively recent addition to the District Plan, there is little evidence to demonstrate whether the provisions of Chapter 13 have been effective and efficient at implementing the objectives of the Plan.

· Despite Chapter 13 being a relatively recent addition to the District Plan, there have been some issues with implementation of the provisions of the Chapter (outlined in paragraph 20 of this report).

· While the current approach of the District Plan is consistent with the approach of the Upper Hutt District Plan, it is not always consistent with the approaches of the other district plans in the Wellington region. The District Plan Review presents an opportunity to improve consistency with other district plans, particularly with the district plans of Wellington and Porirua City Councils, which are both currently being reviewed.

· The District Plan Review presents an opportunity to re-engage with network utility operators to discuss whether the existing provisions of the District Plan on infrastructure are still relevant, or whether there are opportunities to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the District Plan.

OPTION 1: Continue the status quo.

26. Option 1 would involve continuing the current District Plan approach on infrastructure. Any amendments to the objectives, policies and rules would be solely for the purpose of formatting and to ensure consistency with other parts of the Plan.

Benefits

· Addresses identified resource management issues.

· Gives effect to the NPS-ET, NPS-REG and RPS.

· Plan users are accustomed to the existing approach.

· District Plan Review would involve lower financial costs than it would under Options 2 and 3.

Costs

· Would not address known issues with implementation of the current provisions of Chapter 13 of the Plan.

OPTION 2: Retain the existing objectives and policies of the District Plan, and amend the rules and associated standards, with a focus on regional consistency and addressing outcomes of engagement with network utility operators.

27. Option 2 would involve a relatively small-scale review that focuses on whether the rules and associated standards are most appropriate methods to implement the objectives and policies.

28. This option would include a comparison of the existing District Plan rules and standards with those of other councils in the Wellington region, and engagement with network utility operators to discuss whether the existing approach of the District Plan is still relevant, or whether there are opportunities to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Plan.

Benefits

· Would enable Council to continue to address the identified resource management issues.

· Would enable Council to continue to give effect to the NPS-ET, NPS-REG and RPS.

· Would enable Council to address known issues with implementation of the current provisions of Chapter 13 of the Plan.

· District Plan Review would involve lower financial costs when compared to a larger scale review of Option 3.

Costs

· District Plan Review would involve higher financial costs when compared with continuing the status quo (Option 1).

OPTION 3: Fully update the objectives, policies and rules of the District Plan.

29. Option 3 would involve a full update of the objectives, policies and rules of the District Plan on infrastructure, effectively fully reviewing Chapter 13 of the current District Plan.

Benefits

· Would enable Council to continue to address the identified resource management issues.

· Would enable Council to continue to give effect to the NPS-ET, NPS-REG and RPS.

· Would enable Council to address known issues with implementation of the current provisions of Chapter 13 of the Plan.

Costs

· District Plan Review would involve higher financial costs when compared with the smaller scale reviews of Options 1 and 2.

Recommended Option

30. Option 2 is the recommended option.

31. While Option 1 would be an appropriate approach and would have a lower financial cost than the other options, it would not enable Council to address known implementation issues.

32. Option 3 would also be an appropriate approach. However, it is not recommended as the objectives and policies have been reviewed relatively recently and are still considered to be appropriate objectives and policies to address the resource management issues.

Climate Change Impact and Considerations

33. The matters addressed in this report have been considered in accordance with the process set out in Council’s Climate Change Considerations Guide.

34. Infrastructure can have a positive or negative impact on climate change, and infrastructure can be impacted by the effects of climate change. Infrastructure is an essential lifeline and serves a vital function during emergencies, such as a natural hazard event (e.g. flooding). Conversely, the development and upgrade of infrastructure could have a negative impact on climate change through contributing to emissions.

35. If the Sub-Committee sought greater consideration of climate change for the infrastructure chapter, this consideration could be incorporated into Option 3 above.

Engagement

36. Regardless of the option chosen by the Subcommittee, the review of the District Plan approach on infrastructure will involve engagement with stakeholders, the community and iwi. However, the focus and level of detail of the engagement will depend on the option chosen.

37. Following direction from the Subcommittee in response to this report, Council officers will continue to engage with iwi, the community and stakeholders.

38. The key stakeholders for will be the network utility operators who are responsible for the construction, operation, maintenance and upgrade of the district’s infrastructure. The focus of the engagement would be on whether the existing provisions of the District Plan are appropriate or whether there are opportunities to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the District Plan.

39. Given the low number of submissions from residents on Plan Change 34 (three) it is anticipated that the level of community interest on how the District Plan manages infrastructure will be low. While officers will engage with parts of the community that express an interest in this part of the Review, community engagement would primarily be through engagement on a draft Infrastructure chapter.

40. It is also not anticipated that the infrastructure component of the District Plan Review will be a high priority for Council’s iwi partners, as it has not been specifically raised to date by our iwi partners. However, the level and form of iwi engagement on the infrastructure component of the Review will be determined through our ongoing discussions with iwi authorities.

Legal Considerations

41. The legal consideration for this decision is the necessity for Council to meet its legal obligations under the RMA.

Financial Considerations

42. The main costs associated with the District Plan Review with regard to infrastructure would be the costs associated with:

· Engagement, and

· Preparing and evaluation report for a proposed district plan.

43. At this stage, it is anticipated that the engagement and preparation of evaluation reports would be carried out by Council officers, and that the cost of these pieces of work would be covered by the existing District Plan Review budget for all options.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Chapter 13 - Objectives and Policies	72

Author: Nathan Geard

Senior Environmental Policy Analyst

Reviewed By: Hamish Wesney

Head of District Plan Policy

Approved By: Helen Oram

Director Environment and Sustainability

82 18 May 2021

District Plan Review Subcommittee

27 April 2021

File: (21/50)

Report no: DPRS2021/2/111

Transport

Purpose of Report

1. The purpose of this report is to:

a. Inform the District Plan Review Subcommittee on the transport topic of the District Plan Review,

b. Present a range of options for the District Plan Review with regard to transport, and

c. Seek direction from the Subcommittee on how to proceed with the District Plan Review with regard to transport.

Key Points

· The District Plan Review includes a review of the District Plan’s approach on transport.

· Transport is primarily addressed in the current District Plan through Chapter 14A: Transport. Chapter 14 includes objectives and policies that address resource management issues that generally relate to:

o Providing for a safe, efficient, resilient, multi-modal transport network,

o Effects of land use and development on the safety and efficiency of the transport network, and

o Effects of construction, operation and maintenance of the transport network on the surrounding environment.

· The rules of Chapter 14A permit activities that meet design standards and do not exceed High Trip Generator thresholds. If these requirements are not met, resource consent is required.

· Chapter 14A was reviewed relatively recently. This review resulted in Plan Change 39: Transport, which became operative in 2018.

· There has been little change to the statutory and policy context since Plan Change 39 became operative.

· As Chapter 14A has only been a part of the District Plan since March 2018, it has had little opportunity to influence land use in the district. As a result, there is little information on the effectiveness and efficiency of the Chapter. However, there have been some issues with the implementation of the design standards and High Trip Generator thresholds.

· Council officers are seeking direction from the Subcommittee on how the District Plan Review should proceed with in regard to transport. The recommended approach is that Council retains the existing objectives, policies and rules, and amending the permitted activity standards and High Trip Generator thresholds (Option 2).

Recommendation

That the Subcommittee directs officers to proceed with the District Plan Review with regard to transport through Option 2, retaining the existing objectives, policies and rules, and amending the permitted activity standards and High Trip Generator thresholds.

Background

2. The District Plan Review includes a review of the District Plan’s approach on transport. To date, this has involved reviewing the state of the environment, current policy direction, current approach of the District Plan and the effectiveness and efficiency of the Plan at achieving the Plan’s objectives.

3. Through this report, officers are seeking direction on the approach that the review should proceed with in regard to transport.

4. This approach is in contrast to previous reports presented to the Subcommittee, which have sought direction on how the review should be carried out. This different approach is due to the transport chapter being recently reviewed as part of the rolling review and no recent national or regional policy directions relating to transport.

5. This report includes:

a. A summary of the current District Plan approach on transport,

b. The statutory context for transport in the District Plan,

c. The key resource management issues for the Review regarding transport,

d. Options for the District Plan approach on transport, with an evaluation of these options, and

e. A recommended option, with reasons for the recommendation.

6. However, this report does not address the following aspects of transport, which will be addressed through other parts of the District Plan Review:

· Construction, maintenance, upgrades and alteration of network utilities, such as alterations to the road and rail network (network utilities will be addressed through the infrastructure topic of the Review).

· The relationship between development patterns and the transport network, such as different forms and density of development to be enabled (this matter will be addressed through the urban form and development topic of the review).

Discussion

Current District Plan and Plan Change 39

7. Transport is primarily addressed in the District Plan through Chapter 14A: Transport. The only exceptions are provisions for network utilities (such as new roads of Council and Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency) and some servicing requirements for new subdivisions (such as street lighting).

8. Council commenced a review of Chapter 14A in 2015. This review was completed in 2018.

9. The following resource management issues were identified through that review:

· Issue 14A 2.1: A safe, efficient, resilient, multi-modal transport network that is well integrated with land use and development is essential for both sustainable development and social and economic wellbeing.

· Issue 14A 2.2: The construction, operation and maintenance of the transport network can have adverse effects on the surrounding environment, including noise, vibration and visual effects.

· Issue 14A 2.3: Noise sensitive activities can have reverse sensitivity effects on the transport network, potentially affecting the construction, operation and maintenance of the network.

· Issue 14A 2.4: Land use and development can adversely affect the safety and efficiency of the transport network through the generation of additional traffic.

· Issue 14A 2.5: Land use and development can adversely affect the safety and efficiency of the transport network through inappropriate design of on-site transport facilities (vehicle access, parking, manoeuvring and loading facilities).

10. The review resulted in Plan Change 39: Transport, which became operative in March 2018. Plan Change 39 included an entirely new Chapter 14A, including new objectives, policies and rules for the transport network.

11. The objectives of Chapter 14A seek the following outcomes:

· Objective 14A 3.1: A safe, efficient, resilient and well-connected transport network that is integrated with land use patterns, meets local, regional and national transport needs, facilitates and enables urban growth and economic development, and provides for all modes of transport.

· Objective 14A 3.2: Adverse effects from the construction, maintenance and development of the transport network on the adjacent environment are managed.

· Objective 14A 3.3: Reverse sensitivity effects on the transport network from sensitive activities are managed.

· Objective 14A 3.4: Adverse effects on the safety and efficiency of the transport network from land use and development that generate high volumes of traffic are managed.

· Objective 14A 3.5: Adverse effects on the safety and efficiency of the transport network from on-site transport facilities (vehicle access, parking, manoeuvring and loading facilities) are managed.

12. The policies of Chapter 14A give the following direction:

· Policy 14A 4.1: Additions and upgrades to the transport network should seek to improve connectivity across all modes and be designed to meet industry standards that ensure that the safety, efficiency and resilience of the transport network are maintained.

· Policy 14A 4.2: Land use, subdivision and development should not cause significant adverse effects on the connectivity, accessibility and safety of the transport network, and, where appropriate, should:

o seek to improve connectivity within and between communities; and

o enable walking, cycling and access to public transport.

· Policy 14A 4.3: The transport network should be located and designed to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on the adjacent environment.

· Policy 14A 4.4: Land use, subdivision or development containing noise sensitive activities should be designed and located to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects which may arise from the transport network.

· Policy 14A 4.5: Any activity that is a High Trip Generator must be assessed on a case by case basis. Adverse effects of High Trip Generators on the safety and efficiency of the transport network should be managed through the design and location of the land use, subdivision or development.

· Policy 14A 4.6: Vehicle access, parking, manoeuvring and loading facilities should be designed to standards that ensure they do not compromise the safety and efficiency of the transport network.

· Policy 14A 4.7: The transport network, land use, subdivision and development should provide for all transport modes.

13. Under the rules of Chapter 14A, an activity is permitted if:

· It meets the relevant permitted activity standards (Appendix 1 of this report) on:

o The design of new roads,

o Site access and manoeuvring area,

o Visibility at railway level crossings,

o Car and cycle parking and end of trip facilities,

o Loading and unloading facilities, and

o Development within 40m of the state highways and railways; and

· It does not exceed the relevant High Trip Generator Thresholds (Appendix 2 of this report).

14. If an activity does not meet the permitted activity standards, or exceeds a High Trip Generator Threshold, resource consent is required as a restricted discretionary activity, with Council having discretion on:

· The effects generated by the standard(s) not being met.

· The effects of a High Trip Generator on the transport network, including impacts on on-street parking.

Effectiveness and Efficiency of Chapter 14A

15. As Chapter 14A has only been a part of the District Plan since March 2018, it has had little opportunity to influence land use in the district. As a result, there is little information on the effectiveness and efficiency of the Chapter.

16. However, some issues have been identified with the implementation of the District Plan provisions:

· Chapter 14A includes permitted activity standards for roads. However, the network utility and subdivision chapters of the District Plan also include rules on construction and alteration of roads, which effectively make the standards in Chapter 14A unnecessary.

· The District Plan includes permitted activity standards that apply to new buildings within 40m of state highways and rail lines that address noise, vibration and ventilation. However, some plan users have had difficulty determining whether their proposals can meet these standards, particularly where the proposal is a small scale development.

· The High Trip Generator thresholds do not specifically provide for temporary activities, which only have temporary effects on the transport network.

· The transport provisions of the District Plan often refer to external standards, which plan users may not have immediate access to without purchasing a copy of the standards.

Statutory and Policy Context

17. There has been little change to the statutory and policy context for transport since Plan Change 39 became operative in 2018.

18. Table 2 summarises the key statutory documents for the District Plan Review with regard to the transport network.

Table 2. Key statutory context for the District Plan Review with regard to transport.

National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 (the NPS-UD)

The NPS-UD sets out the objectives and policies for planning for well-functioning urban environments under the Resource Management Act. District plans must give effect to the NPS-UD.

The NPS-UD includes objectives and policies on providing for medium to high density residential development that is integrated with public transport.

The NPS-UD also requires councils to amend their district plans so that they do not require car park minimums. However, district plans may still require accessible car parks or include standards on parking dimensions and manoeuvring standards.

Regional Policy Statement for the Wellington Region 2013 (the RPS)

With regard to the transport network, the RPS include objectives and policies that give direction on:

· Recognising the benefits from renewable energy and regionally significant infrastructure,

· Protecting regionally significant infrastructure,

· Promoting travel demand management,

· Recognising the benefits from renewable energy and regionally significant infrastructure, and

· Integrating land use and transportation.

As the RPS was in effect during the previous review of the District Plan’s approach on transport, the current District Plan gives effect to the RPS.

19. In addition, there are several strategies and plans that Council needs to have regard to, including:

· Wellington Regional Land Transport Plan,

· Hutt City Council integrated transport strategy (in development),

· Hutt Corridor Plan,

· Regional Road Safety Plan,

· Regional Cycling Plan,

· Regional Walking Plan,

· Regional Travel Demand Management Plan,

· Regional Freight Plan,

· Urban Growth Strategy, and

· Walk and Cycle the Hutt.

20. As most of these plans and strategies were in place during the previous review of the District Plan’s approach on transport, they were considered through that review. The two exceptions are:

· The Wellington Regional Land Transport Plan, which is currently being reviewed, with a new version expected to be in place from July 2021, and

· Council’s Integrated Transport Strategy, which is currently being developed.

Options

21. Through this report, officers are seeking direction on the approach that the review should proceed with in regard to transport.

22. Key considerations that have informed these options are:

· The District Plan approach on transport has been reviewed relatively recently,

· Through Plan Change 39, which became operative in March 2018, the current objectives, policies and rules of Chapter 14A were deemed to be appropriate,

· As the policies and rules of Chapter 14A are relatively recent additions to the District Plan, there is little evidence to demonstrate whether they have been effective and efficient at implementing the objectives.

· There has been little change to the statutory and policy framework for the District Plan approach on transport.

OPTION 1: Continue the status quo.

23. Option 1 would involve continuing the current District Plan approach on transport. Any amendments to the objectives, policies and rules would be solely for the purpose of formatting and to ensure consistency with other parts of the Plan.

Benefits

· Addresses identified resource management issues.

· Gives effect to the RPS.

· Plan users are accustomed to the existing approach.

· District Plan Review would involve lower financial costs than it would under Options 2 and 3.

Costs

· Would not address known issues with implementation of the current permitted activity standards and High Trip Generator thresholds.

OPTION 2: Retain the existing objectives, policies and rules, and amend the permitted activity standards and High Trip Generator thresholds.

24. Option 2 would involve a relatively small-scale review that focuses on whether the rules, permitted activity standards and High Trip Generator thresholds are most appropriate methods to implement the objectives and policies.

25. An alternative to Option 2 would be for the Subcommittee to specify which standards and thresholds should be revisited through the Review. This may be appropriate if there is a specific resource management issue that is of concern to the Subcommittee.

Benefits

· Would enable Council to address the identified resource management issues.

· Would enable Council to continue to give effect to the RPS.

· Would enable Council to address known issues with implementation of current permitted activity standards and High Trip Generator thresholds.

· District Plan Review would involve lower financial costs when compared to a larger scale review of Option 3.

Costs

· District Plan Review would involve higher financial costs when compared with continuing the status quo (Option 1).

OPTION 3: Fully update the transport chapter of the District Plan.

26. Option 3 would involve a full update of Chapter 14A of the District Plan. This would include revisiting the current objectives and policies.

27. An alternative to Option 3 would be for the Subcommittee to specify which objectives, policies, rules, standards and thresholds should be revisited through the Review. This may be appropriate if there is a specific resource management issue that is of concern to the Subcommittee.

Benefits

· Would enable Council to address the identified resource management issues.

· Would enable Council to continue to give effect to the RPS.

· Would enable Council to address known issues with implementation of current permitted activity standards and High Trip Generator thresholds.

Costs

· District Plan Review would involve higher financial costs when compared with the smaller scale reviews of Options 1 and 2.

Recommended Option

28. Option 2 is the recommended option.

29. While Option 1 would be an appropriate approach and would have a lower financial cost than the other options, it would not enable Council to address known implementation issues.

30. Option 3 would also be an appropriate approach. However, it is not recommended as the objectives and policies have been reviewed relatively recently and are still considered to be appropriate objectives and policies to address the resource management issues.

Climate Change Impact and Considerations

31. The matters addressed in this report have been considered in accordance with the process set out in Council’s Climate Change Considerations Guide.

32. It is recognised transport is a major contributor to emissions. One of the issues and objectives resulting from the recent review of the Transport chapter was “a safe, efficient, resilient and well-connected transport network that is integrated with land use patterns, meets local, regional and national transport needs, facilitates and enables urban growth and economic development, and provides for all modes of transport”.

33. If the Sub-Committee sought greater consideration of climate change for the transport chapter, this consideration could be incorporated into Option 3 above.

Engagement

34. Regardless of the option chosen by the Subcommittee, the review of the District Plan approach on transport will involve engagement with stakeholders, the community and iwi. However, the focus and level of detail of the engagement will depend on the option chosen.

35. Key stakeholders that will be engaged with include:

· Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency,

· KiwiRail,

· Greater Wellington Regional Council,

· Council’s Transport team,

· Property developers, and

· Interest groups for active transport modes.

36. Community engagement will follow stakeholder engagement, and will mostly involve consultation on a draft Transport chapter. However, there may be the need for earlier engagement with the community to inform that draft.

37. It is not anticipated that the transport component of the District Plan Review will be a high priority for Council’s iwi partners, as it has not been specifically raised to date by our iwi partners. However, the level and form of iwi engagement on the transport component of the Review will be determined through our ongoing discussions with iwi authorities.

Legal Considerations

38. The legal consideration for this decision is the necessity for Council to meet its legal obligations under the RMA.

Financial Considerations

39. The main costs associated with the District Plan Review with regard to transport would be the costs associated with:

· Engaging with stakeholders, the community and iwi, and

· Preparing and evaluation report for a proposed district plan.

40. At this stage, it is anticipated that the engagement and preparation of evaluation reports would be carried out by Council officers, and that the cost of these pieces of work would be covered by the existing District Plan Review budget for all options.

Appendices

No.	Title	Page
1 ⇩	Appendix 1 - Permitted Activity Standards	83
2 ⇩	Appendix 2 - High Trip Generator Thresholds	89

Author: Nathan Geard

Senior Environmental Policy Analyst

Reviewed By: Hamish Wesney

Head of District Plan Policy

Approved By: Helen Oram

Director Environment and Sustainability

[1] A Standard Tree Evaluation Method (STEM), Ron Flook, 1996

Cr S Edwards (Chair)

Cr K Brown	Cr B Dyer
Deputy Mayor T Lewis (Deputy Chair)	Cr N Shaw
Maiora Dentice (endorsed by Te Rūnanganui o Te Ati Awa)
Ashley Ede (endorsed by both the Wellington Tenths Trust and the Palmerston North Māori Reserves Trust)