UNCONFIRMED                                                                       1                                                   18 May 2021


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

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

Lower Hutt on

 Tuesday 18 May 2021 commencing at 2.00pm


PRESENT:                        Cr S Edwards (Chair)                   Cr K Brown

                                          Cr B Dyer                                      Deputy Mayor T Lewis

                                          Cr N Shaw                                                Ms M Dentice


APOLOGIES:                   There were no apologies.




IN ATTENDANCE:         Ms H Oram, Director Environment and Sustainability (part meeting)

Mr H Wesney, Head of District Plan Policy

Mr N Geard, Senior Environmental Policy Analyst

Mr J Joseph, Senior Environmental Policy Analyst

Ms C McNab, Environmental Policy Analyst

Mr S Davis, Policy Planner

Mr B Haddrell, Policy Planner

Ms H Clegg, Minute Taker









1.       OPENING FORMALITIES - Karakia Timatanga       

Ki a tau ki a tātou katoa

Te atawhai o tō tatou

Ariki o Ihu Karaiti

Me te Aroha o te Atua

Me te whiwhinga tahitanga

Ki te wairua tapu

Ake ake ake




2.       APOLOGIES 

There were no apologies.



There was no public comment.


         There were no conflict of interest declarations.

5.       Minutes


Resolved:    (Cr Edwards/Cr Dyer)                                      Minute No. DPRS 21201

“That the minutes of the meeting of the District Plan Review Subcommittee held on Thursday, 18 February 2021, be confirmed as a true and correct record.”


Urban Form and Development - Intensification Areas (21/649)

Report No. DPRS2021/2/107 by the Senior Environmental Policy Analyst



The Senior Environmental Policy Analyst elaborated on the report.

In response to questions from members, the Senior Environmental Policy Analyst advised the National Policy Statement (NPS) did not specify the exact method a District Plan should adopt.  He said that Option 3 would provide a higher level of certainty for the community.  He explained any maps produced for consultation on Option 3 would be on a city-wide scale.

The Head of District Plan Policy advised that officers could provide additional information if individual property owners requested it.

In response to questions from members,  the Head of District Plan Policy explained that seeking public feedback on walkable distance and densities now would provide clearer policy direction.  He added that if officers waited until all the qualifying matters studies had been completed, there would not be enough time for comprehensive public consultation on a possible major change from the existing District Plan rules.  He further added that the community’s perception of “walkable” was important as each local authority had to determine what was “walkable” for their area.  

In response to a question from a member regarding how a ‘Metropolitan Area’ was determined, the Senior Environmental Policy Analyst explained that Petone would qualify as such an area and was identified within the Regional Policy Statement as a sub-regional centre.  He acknowledged the heritage qualifying matters of Petone might prevent high densities being permissible.  He added that area of study had yet to be completed.

The Head of District Plan Policy advised if consultation was undertaken now it would clearly explain that ‘walkable distance’ and the potential for higher density housing would be subject to qualifying matters.

The Senior Environmental Policy Analyst confirmed that a qualifying matter could be ‘residential character’ and the term was not defined in the NPS.  He noted officers were currently working on a report related to this topic.  This report would reported to the subcommittee later in the year.  He acknowleged climate change consultation would also occur. 

The Head of District Plan Policy advised that a blanket exclusion of high density developments for an area was not permissible under the NPS.  He said that careful identification of areas to be excluded, the management of these and the adjoining properties was currently being assessed.  He confirmed that the NPS required higher density developments to be ‘enabled’ and that accessibility was a factor.  He added minimum lot size for each zone would be determined as part of the review of all residential zones.

In response to questions raised by members regarding overloading the public with consultation, the Head of District Plan Policy advised that officers were aware there was potential for this to occur.  He said information would be released as it became available to lessen any perceived predetermination of matters and to ensure each matter was fully understood.

Crs Edwards, Shaw and Deputy Mayor Lewis expressed support for Option 3. 

Cr Dyer expressed support for Option 2.



Resolved:     (Cr Edwards/Cr Shaw)                                    Minute No. DPRS 21202

“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 Geographic Information System network analysis of walkable catchments of: 

(a)     the city centre;

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

(c)      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.”

Cr Dyer requested that his dissenting vote be recorded on the above matter.




Open Space - Zones, Classification of Sites and Engagement (21/632)

Report No. DPRS2021/2/108 by the Policy Planner


The Policy Planner elaborated on the report.


Resolved(Cr Edwards/Deputy Mayor Lewis)                   Minute No. DPRS 21203

“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.



Notable Trees (20/1175)

Report No. DPRS2021/2/109 by the Policy Planner


The Policy Planner elaborated on the report.  He advised that paragraph 31 of the officer’s report should read three trees instead of 109 trees.  He further advised there was currently no national policy direction regarding trees.

In response to questions from members, the Policy Planner explained minimal costs would be incurred with Option 2.  He confirmed that the 2014 Stem Assessment could be reviewed and utilised.  He said an arborist would be engaged to undertake any assessments required.  He added that Council’s Parks and Recreation business unit had provided a list of trees with special values which were located on public land.

In response to further questions from members, the Policy Planner advised that officers did not regularly receive inquiries regarding trees.

Cr Brown left the meeting at 3.14pm.

The Head of District Plan Policy advised that the current objective in the District Plan was to protect Notable Trees.  He said a non-regulatory approach would not achieve that.  He confirmed that once a Notable Tree was listed, it would be protected. 

In response to questions from a member, the Policy Planner confirmed that a Plan Change process would need to be followed to remove a tree from the Notable Tree list.  He noted that under the existing rules, a Notable Tree could be removed if it was causing damage to property, life or was badly diseased.  He added that a tiered approach to Notable Trees could be adopted.  He was uncertain where the threshold would lie between voluntary and mandatory listing and it could be a complicated procedure. 

Cr Brown rejoined the meeting at 3.18pm.

Crs Dyer and Shaw expressed support for Option 2.  They supported the introduction of a tiered system of voluntary and mandatory listing of Notable Trees.

Cr Brown and Deputy Mayor Lewis expressed concern with a tiered system. They considered Notable Trees were not a large issue in the City and resources should be directed elsewhere.

The vote was tied 3-3. The Chair used his casting vote per Hutt City Council’s Standing Order 19.3 and the motion was declared carried.



Resolved: (on the casting vote of the Chair)     (Cr Edwards/Cr Dyer)                                                                                                                                            Minute No. DPRS 21204

“That the Subcommittee:

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

(2)        identifies Option 2 as the preferred option for the Notable Tree chapter of the draft             District Plan; and

(3)        asks officers to investigate and report back on the potential of a tiered system of             listing with the most valuable trees with a high Stem score requiring mandatory             listing and those with a lesser score requiring voluntary listing.”



Cr Dyer

Cr Edwards

Cr Shaw




Cr Brown

Deputy Mayor Lewis

Ms Dentice

Total: 3

Total: 3



Infrastructure (21/44)

Report No. DPRS2021/2/110 by the Senior Environmental Policy Analyst


The Senior Environmental Policy Analyst elaborated on the report.

Deputy Mayor Lewis left the meeting at 3.35pm


Resolved:       (Cr Edwards/Cr Brown)                                Minute No. DPRS 21205

“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.”


Transport (21/50)

Report No. DPRS2021/2/111 by the Senior Environmental Policy Analyst


Deputy Mayor Lewis rejoined the meeting at 3.37pm.

The Senior Environmental Policy Analyst elaborated on the report.


Resolved:   (Cr Brown/Cr Shaw)                                          Minute No. DPRS 21206

“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.”

11.     QUESTIONS   

         There were no questions.



There being no further business the Chair declared the meeting closed at 3.35 pm.








                                                                                                                         Cr S Edwards




CONFIRMED as a true and correct record

Dated this 1st day of July 2021