HuttCity_TeAwaKairangi_BLACK_AGENDA_COVER

 

 

 

 KOMITI ITI AROTAKE MAHERE Ā-ROHE|

District Plan Review Subcommittee

 

 

10 March 2022

 

 

 

Order Paper for the meeting to be held via Zoom on:

 

 

 

 

Thursday 17 March 2022 commencing at 12.30pm

Members of the public wishing to speak to items on the agenda are asked to contact democraticservicesteam@huttcity.govt.nz

 

 

 

Membership

 

 

                                   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)

 

 

 

 

For the dates and times of Council Meetings please visit www.huttcity.govt.nz

 

Have your say

You can speak under public comment to items on the agenda to the Mayor and Councillors at this meeting. Please let us know by noon the working day before the meeting. You can do this by emailing DemocraticServicesTeam@huttcity.govt.nz or calling the Democratic Services Team on 04 570 6666 | 0800 HUTT CITY

 

 


HuttCity_TeAwaKairangi_SCREEN_MEDRES

DISTRICT PLAN REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE

 

Membership:                  Chair of Policy, Finance and Strategy Committee

                                     4 other councillors

                                            Up to 2 representatives appointed by Iwi

 

NOTE:

Elected members should hold current certification under the Making Good Decisions Training, Assessment and Certification Programme for RMA Decision-Makers.

The Chair should in addition hold Chair certification.

Standing Orders 30 and 31 outlining provisions for Tangata Whenua and Taura Here do not apply to this Subcommittee, and Iwi appointees will have full voting rights as members of the Subcommittee under Standing Orders.

 

Meeting Cycle:              As required

Quorum:                      4

                                        

Reports to:                       Policy, Finance and Strategy Committee

 

PURPOSE:

To make recommendations to the Policy, Finance and Strategy Committee, for recommendation to Council on the matters to be addressed in the full review of the District Plan and development of a Proposed District Plan.

Provide:

Direction to Council officers on all matters relating to the drafting of content for the review of the District Plan. This includes but is not limited to:

·       scoping and investigation of the issues

·       engagement on possible content

·       development of discussion documents and other draft documents for consultation

·       development of a Draft District Plan for consultation

·       development of a Proposed District Plan for statutory consultation.

General:

Any other matters delegated to the Subcommittee by Council in accordance with approved policies and bylaws.

    


HUTT CITY COUNCIL

 

Komiti Iti Arotake Mahere ā-Rohe|

District Plan Review Subcommittee

 

Meeting to be held via audio visual link on

Thursday 17 March 2022 commencing at 12.30pm.

 

ORDER PAPER

 

Public Business

 

1.       OPENING FORMALITIES - KARAKIA (22/36)

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

Amine

 

2.       APOLOGIES

3.       PUBLIC COMMENT

Generally up to 30 minutes is set aside for public comment (three minutes per speaker on items appearing on the agenda). Speakers may be asked questions on the matters they raise.

4.       CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.    

5.       Minutes

Meeting minutes District Plan Review Subcommittee, 10 February 2022                                                                     5

6.       Intensification Planning Instrument - Draft Summary Document (22/523)

Report No. DPRS2022/1/54 by the Principal Environmental Policy Analyst                                          11  

   CHAIR’s Recommendation:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be discussed.”

 

  

7.       QUESTIONS

With reference to section 32 of Standing Orders, before putting a question a member shall endeavour to obtain the information. Questions shall be concise and in writing and handed to the Chair prior to the commencement of the meeting.

 

 

8.       CLOSING FORMALITIES - KARAKIA WHAKAMUTUNGA

 

Unuhia! 

Unuhia! 

Unuhia i te uru-tapu-nui 

Kia wātea, kia māmā 

Te ngākau, te tinana, te wairua i te ara takatū. Koia rā e Rongo whakairihia ake ki runga  Kia wātea, kia wātea! 

Ae rā, kua wātea! 

Hau, pai mārire.

 

 

 

Annie Doornebosch

Democracy Advisor

 

 


                                                                       1            10 February 2022

HUTT CITY COUNCIL

 

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

 Thursday 10 February 2022 commencing at 2.20pm

 

 

 

PRESENT:                        Cr S Edwards (Chair)                   Cr K Brown

Cr B Dyer                                      Deputy Mayor T Lewis

Cr N Shaw

 

APOLOGIES:                   Ms M Dentice

 

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

Ms P Rotherham, Head of Planning (via audio visual link)

Mr N Geard, Senior Environmental Policy Analyst (via audio visual link)

Mr S Davis, Policy Planner (via audio visual link)

Ms E Campbell, Tikanga Māori Policy Planner (via audio visual link) (part meeting)

Mr C Page, Intermediate Policy Planner (via audio visual link) (part meeting)

Ms M Schwalger, Senior Communications Advisor (via audio visual link)  (part meeting)

Ms K Stannard, Head of Democratic Services (via audio visual link)

Ms K Glanville, Senior Democracy Advisor (via audio visual link)

Mrs A Doornebosch, Democracy Advisor

 

 

PUBLIC BUSINESS

 

 

1.       OPENING FORMALITIES – KARAKIA

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

Amine

 

2.       APOLOGIES

RESOLVED:  (Cr Edwards/Cr Dyer)                                       Minute No. DPRS22101

“That the apology received from Ms Dentice be accepted and leave of absence be granted.”

3.       PUBLIC COMMENT

          There was no public comment.

4.       CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS

          There were no conflict of interest declarations.

5.       Minutes

Resolved:  (Cr Edwards/Deputy Mayor Lewis)              Minute No. DPRS 22102

“That the minutes of the meeting of the District Plan Review Subcommittee held on Monday, 6 December 2021, be confirmed as a true and correct record.”

  

6.

Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021 and its implications for the District Plan Review (22/11)

Report No. DPRS2022/1/1 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 highlighted that Council was required to give effect to the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPSUD) by August 2022.  He noted that due to recent changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA), the development of the Intensification Planning Instrument (IPI) was also now a requirement under the RMA.  He advised Policies 3 and 4 of the NPSUD would now be incorporated into the new IPI.   He noted these were the primary portions of the NPSUD in relation to intensification.  He said some other parts of the NPSUD fell outside of these policies and would not be given effect to before August 2022.   He said if the remainder of the review of the District Plan was delayed, some qualifying matters not already included in the current District Plan,  would create some risk.   He advised Council would need to decide whether to continue with the remainder of the review of the District Plan in conjunction with the IPI, or after.  He advised there would likely be some financial repercussions as the District Plan Review would now be two formal processes. 

In response to questions from members the Director, Environment and Sustainability highlighted possible risks to Council if the August 2022 deadline for the NSPUD was not met.  She noted this could include reputational risk as a Tier 1 Council, and it could also create risks to the development industry in Lower Hutt.  She said officers understood several planning consultants had been instructed to prepare applications for developments that would comply with the new IPI in line with the August 2022 deadline. She said this work had been completed in the belief that they would meet the statutory timeframe.   She considered running the two processes together would be confusing for people taking part in the process.

In response to questions from members, the Head of Planning highlighted an important part of the review of the District Plan included sites of significance to Māori.   She highlighted the current shortage of iwi available to engage in the process.  She said if Council chose to condense timeframes this may have an impact on this part of the review.  She advised officers could provide estimated cost differences between separate or joint processes.  She said the cost of the parallel process would likely be higher.

The Chair foreshadowed his intention to move an additional recommendation that the item be considered by the Policy, Finance and Strategy Committee on Tuesday, 22 February 2022.  

 

ReCOMMENDED:           (Cr Edwards/Cr Brown)                     Minute No. DPRS 22103

“That the Subcommittee recommends that the Policy, Finance and Strategy Committee recommends that Council:

 

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

 

(2)    proceeds with the District Plan Review through Option 2:  An Intensification Planning Instrument plan change followed by full new District Plan.”

 

 

7.

Intensification Planning Instrument - Initial option identification and analysis (22/22)

Report No. DPRS2022/1/2 by the Senior Environmental Policy Analyst

 

The Senior Environmental Policy Analyst elaborated on the report.   He provided a presentation explaining the colour coding on the Zone Maps on slides 1 and 2.  He noted that lighter and darker yellow areas on slide 1 were areas in the current General Residential Activity Area, which would be impacted by the Intensification Planning Instrument (IPI).   He advised brown areas around railway stations were Medium Density Residential Areas, and would also be affected by IPI.   He said orange zones were the equivalent of Large Lot Residential Areas and would be excluded from the IPI.   He advised slides 4 and 5 compared the Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS) that must be incorporated into the District Plan through the IPI, with the standards that are currently applied.  He highlighted a summary of IPI requirements was included in the table on page 55 of the Agenda, and said that officers had based their recommendations to align with these requirements.  

In response to questions from members, the Policy Planner advised the recommendations for commercial areas that were also historic areas such as Jackson Street in Petone were specific to city and suburb centres.  He highlighted that Petone did have intensification requirements and also the option to use qualifying matters.  He advised officers had recommended to use historic heritage as a qualifying matter including retaining the heritage aesthetic for Jackson Street.  He noted this would prevent developers from building six storey developments in Jackson Street after the introduction of the IPI, even though they were within a walkable distance from a railway station.  He said officers had not yet assessed the level of development to recommend for areas in Petone outside of Jackson Street.  He noted officers were expecting to provide a report to the Subcommittee meeting to be held on 17 March 2022, relating to the Petone and Jackson Street precincts.  He noted that Suburban Mixed Use Zones that were areas next to railway stations within a walkable catchment would enable six storey developments in the IPI.   He said sites of key demand in these areas would also be enabled for greater than six storey developments.  He advised areas that did not need six storey developments that were not candidates for intensification, would retain their existing height limits.

In response to questions from members, the Senior Environmental Policy Analyst advised that there would be no value in retaining Comprehensive Residential Developments (CRD) under the IPI.  He said the level of standards required for this to be incorporated under the IPI would be higher than what was currently provided for.  He advised the removal of the CRD could be achieved by a consequential amendment under the IPI.   He noted site boundaries for the MDRS would remain at 1 metre for all side boundaries.  He said front site boundaries would be amended from 2 metres to 1.5 metres.  He noted Council could modify this so that front boundaries were more enabling as long as the capacity was not diminished.   He said officers had recommended that existing provisions relating to outdoor space, landscape area and permeable surfacing of the MDRS added through Plan Change 43 be retained.  He said the Community Iwi Activity Area was a zone currently included in the District Plan.  He advised provisions for papakāinga could be included as an additional provision in the IPI.   He noted officers were holding ongoing meetings with Iwi partners and would report back on this matter.   He said infrastructure constraints such as sensitive water urban designs could be managed through current building consent processes. 

He advised officers could provide more information to the next meeting on MDRS options RZ4.2 and RZ4.3 for residential zones.  

In response to a question from a member, the Head of Planning noted a number of planning consultants had been advised to start preparing applications for developments above the current three storey height provisions under the new MDRS.   She said she considered three to four storey developments under the new standards would be economically feasible for apartment developments.

Cr Dyer left meeting at 4.00pm and rejoined the meeting at 4.03pm.

Deputy Mayor Lewis left meeting at 4.04pm and rejoined the meeting at 4.06pm.

In response to questions from members, the Director, Environment and Sustainability noted the current rules for overall building height limits was 10 metres.  She said the new indicated rules set by government would be 11 metres, plus a 1 metre allowance for roofing.   She said the indicative standards from government had no design criteria set around them.  She noted officers could provide an update on the percentage of development criteria to sites to the next meeting.

The Chair foreshadowed his intention to move an additional motion asking officers to provide more information on option RZ4.3.

 

ReCOMMENDED:     (Cr Edwards/Cr Dyer)                                Minute No. DPRS 22104

“That the Subcommittee recommends that the Policy, Finance and Strategy Committee recommends that Council:

(1)   receives the information contained in the report, including the identification and evaluation of options for the Intensification Planning Instrument;

(2)   requests officers to prepare a draft Intensification Planning Instrument for consideration at the District Plan Review Subcommittee meeting on 17 March 2022, through the following approach:

Commercial zones

(a)        in the city centre, no specific building height and density limits in the Core and Riverfront (Core) Precincts and increased height limits in other precincts to six storeys (Option CZ1.1); and

(b)        in suburban centres, provide for varying heights based on commercial and community services and access to public and active transport, which would be above six storeys in some areas, and below six storeys in others (Option CZ2.2);

Residential zones

(a)        a 1200m walkable catchment for the city centre and Petone metropolitan centre, and a 800m walkable catchment for train stations on the Hutt Valley and Melling Lines (Option RZ1.2); and

(b)        in walkable catchments of the city centre, Petone metropolitan centre and train stations on the Hutt Valley and Melling Lines:

1)       permit buildings of up to three storeys, subject to standards of the Medium Density Residential Standard; and

2)       require resource consent for buildings of four or more storeys, with provisions supporting buildings up to six storeys (Option RZ2.2);

(c)        align building heights for residential areas adjacent to Neighbourhood, Local and Town centre zones with the building height and density provisions of other residential areas with similar levels of access to commercial activities and community services (Option RZ3.2); and

(d)        modify the Medium Density Residential Standards to align them with the existing District Plan standards for the Medium Density Residential Activity Area but asks officers to provide more information on Options RZ4.2 and RZ4.3;

Qualifying matters

(a)       modify the Medium Density Residential Standards and building height and density requirements under Policy 3 of the NPS-UD to accommodate the following:

1)    the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development;

2)    the management of significant risks from natural hazards; and

3)    open space provided for public use, but only in relation to land that is open space.”

8.       QUESTIONS

There were no questions.

 

 

There being no further business the Chair declared the meeting closed at 4.29pm.

 

 

 

 

Cr S Edwards

CHAIR

 

 

 

 

CONFIRMED as a true and correct record

Dated this 17th day of March 2022

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


                                                                              1                             17 March 2022

District Plan Review Subcommittee

02 March 2022

 

 

 

File: (22/523)

 

 

 

 

Report no: DPRS2022/1/54

 

Intensification Planning Instrument - Draft Summary Document

 

Purpose of Report

1.    The purpose of this report is to seek approval of the Subcommittee to undertake consultation on a ‘Draft’ Intensification Planning Instrument (District Plan change) in the form of a summary document.

Recommendations

That the Subcommittee:

(1)   receives the information contained in the report, including the summary document on the ‘Draft’ Intensification Planning Instrument attached as Appendix 1 to the report; and

(2)   approves the summary document on the ‘Draft’ Intensification Planning Instrument for consultation.

 

Background

2.    As reported to the Subcommittee on 10 February 2022, in December 2021, Parliament passed the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021 (the Housing Supply Act).

3.    This Act seeks to accelerate the supply of housing in urban areas where demand for housing is high, which includes the Lower Hutt urban area, by amending the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 (NPS-UD).

4.    As a result of these amendments, territorial authorities are required to:

·   Prepare an Intensification Planning Instrument (IPI) – a specific district plan change to enable greater building heights and density of urban form, primarily in residential areas.

·   Process the IPI through an Intensification Streamlined Planning Process - a new district plan change process that is more streamlined and condensed than the standard plan change process.

5.    Given these new requirements, officers are preparing an IPI for the City of Lower Hutt District Plan. While the new requirements have delayed the full review of the District Plan, work that has been done to date on the review of the District Plan (including technical assessments) will be used to inform the IPI and will remain relevant for the full District Plan review when it proceeds. 

6.    At its 10 February 2022 meeting, the Subcommittee was briefed by officers on the requirements of the IPI and the options available to Council. While the Subcommittee discussed the approach Council could take in the IPI, and in some cases gave an indication of the preferred options, no formal decisions were made at that meeting on the options that were presented.

7.    Officers have prepared a summary document for a draft IPI, based on the options recommended at that meeting, for the purposes of community and stakeholder engagement, and now seek the Subcommittee’s direction regarding this summary and engagement.

Discussion

Community and Stakeholder Engagement for the District Plan Review

8.    Community and stakeholder engagement has been undertaken on the District Plan Review throughout 2020 and 2021. This engagement has sought to better understand whether the Operative District Plan is achieving its objectives and whether it still reflects the community views and aspirations. In addition, this engagement has sought to further understand the workability and implementation issues with the Operative District Plan.

9.    Community engagement on the District Plan Review to date has been focused on the key topics of housing, natural hazards, historic heritage, natural environment and business development. Stakeholder engagement on the District Plan Review to date has been more targeted relating to the areas or topics of interest to individual stakeholders.

10.   This engagement has used a variety of methods, including open days/drop-in sessions, summary brochures and website information, online webinars, online surveys, one-on-one meetings, phone calls and social media.

Process Requirements in Preparing the Intensification Planning Instrument

11.   From a process perspective, the key requirement is that the IPI (the Plan Change) is publicly notified by 20 August 2022. The Housing Supply Act also states that Council must not notify more than one IPI or withdraw the IPI.

12.   In preparing the IPI, the same obligations apply as preparing any standard plan change. These obligations include consultation prior to notification, including supplying iwi authorities with a copy of the draft plan change prior to notification for comment.

13.   The Minister for the Environment is expected to issue a direction shortly setting out the requirements for the process following notification of the IPI, including the number and composition of the hearing panel.

Content Requirements in Preparing the Intensification Planning Instrument

14.   The IPI is a change to a district plan that must:

·     Incorporate specific Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS) as set out in the Housing Supply Act; and

·     Give effect to Policies 3, 4 and 5 of the NPS-UD.

15.   In addition, the IPI may amend or include:

·     Provisions relating to financial contributions,

·     Provisions to enable papakāinga housing; and

·     Related provisions (including objectives, policies, rules, standards and zones) that support or are consequential to the MDRS or Policies 3, 4 and 5 of the NPS-UD.

Note: As Policy 5 of the NPS-UD relates solely to tier 2 and 3 territorial authorities, it is not relevant to Hutt City Council (as a tier 1 territorial authority) and is therefore not discussed in this report.

16.   The details of these requirements were set out in the report to the Sub-committee meeting held on 10 February 2022.

Summary document for the ‘Draft’ Intensification Planning Instrument

17.   A summary document has been prepared for the draft IPI. The summary document is based on the recommended options presented to the Subcommittee at its 10 February 2022 meeting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

18.   Table 1 includes a summary of these recommended options.

Table 1. Recommended options for the Intensification Planning Instrument.

Recommended options for Commercial zones

Building heights and density in the City centre zone

Provide for no specific building height and density limits in the Core and Riverfront (Core) Precincts and increase height limits in the other precincts to six storeys. Building heights and densities could be indirectly restricted (e.g. protections for heritage buildings, sunlight access to key public spaces like Andrews Avenue).

Building heights and density in Suburban centres

Provide for heights varying based on commercial and community services and access to public and active transport, which would be above six storeys in some (e.g., the largest centres around key train stations), and below six storeys in others (e.g. small, isolated blocks of shops in distant suburbs with smaller catchments and less public transport access).

Recommended options for Residential zones

Location and extent of walkable catchment areas

1200m walkable catchment for:

·    The city centre,

·    The Petone metropolitan centre, and

800m walkable catchment for:

·    Train stations on the Hutt Valley and Melling Lines.

Enabling buildings of at least six storeys in walkable catchment areas

·    Permit buildings of up to three storeys, subject to standards of the MDRS.

·    Resource consent required for buildings of four or more storeys, with provisions supporting the buildings up to six storeys.

Building heights and density in areas adjacent to suburban centres

Align building heights for residential areas adjacent to Neighbourhood, Local and Town centre zones with the building height and density provisions of other residential areas with similar levels of access to commercial activities and community services.

Modifying Medium Density Residential Standards to be more enabling of development

Modify the Medium Density Residential Standards to align them with the existing District Plan standards for the Medium Density Residential Activity Area, including the omission of standards on Landscaped areas, Outlook space and Window requirements for street facing facades.

Recommended options for Qualifying matters

Modify the Medium Density Residential Standards and building height and density requirements under Policy 3 of the  NPS-UD  to accommodate the following:

·    The protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development.

·    The management of significant risks from natural hazards

·    Open space provided for public use, but only in relation to land that is open space.


Options

19.   There are two primary options for consulting on the Intensification Planning Instrument (Plan Change):

a.       Option 1: Consult on a non-statutory summary Draft IPI prior to notification of the Proposed IPI (Recommended)

         This option enables the community to be informed on the key changes in the IPI and provide feedback. As a non-statutory process and summary document, the consultation is less adversarial compared with the statutory RMA process. This consultation enables potential issues to be identified early and changes to be made to the IPI. In turn, this consultation can reduce the need for submissions or appeals in the formal statutory process, reducing time and costs at that stage. Consultation on non-statutory draft district plans/plan changes is best practice.

This is the recommended option.

b.      Option 2: Consult only on the Proposed IPI

         This option involves consultation that is prescribed by the RMA and Housing Supply Act with no consultation on a Draft District Plan Change. Community consultation would commence with the public notification of the Proposed District Plan Change. At this point it is a statutory process and some rules will have legal effect. While this process still allows anyone to make a submission, this is a more formal process which can be costly and time-consuming for submitters and consequently can have the effect of excluding groups or individuals from the process. Relying on this statutory consultation can also result in additional time and costs (both for submitters and the Council) to resolve matters that could have been resolved earlier.

20.   In addition to these two primary options, there are potentially other options involving different engagement methods. For example, in lieu of general community consultation on a draft document, a community reference group could be established, or existing community groups be used for testing and feedback on draft provisions. Alternatively, another option could be no consultation on a draft document and running a series of engagements (most likely online) such as surveys or online forums seeking feedback on specific aspects of the IPI. These other options have been discounted given the IPI is of city-wide significance, the inter-connected aspects of the issues, and the short period of time to prepare the plan change.

Next Steps

21.   Depending on whether the Sub-committee decides to consult on a non-statutory draft plan change, the next steps would be:

a.    April 2022: IPI Engagement on the ‘draft’ IPI, by informing the community and stakeholders of the IPI and its requirements, and engaging on the aspects of the IPI where there are options (does not occur if Option 2 selected);

b.    May 2022: Review feedback on ‘draft’ IPI Plan Change (does not occur if Option 2 selected);

c.    April and May 2022: Concurrent with engaging on the ‘draft’ IPI Plan Change (if Option 1 selected), ongoing drafting of the detailed provisions of the IPI Plan Change. In addition, ongoing evaluation of qualifying matters;

d.    May 2022: Iwi authorities sent a copy of the full draft IPI for feedback as required by Clause 4A Schedule 1 RMA;

e.    12 May 2022: District Plan Review Subcommittee meeting to receive summary of feedback from engagement and consider a ‘working draft’ IPI and provide direction;

f.     23 June 2022: District Plan Review Subcommittee meeting to receive and consider ‘final’ Proposed IPI for adoption to public notification;

g.    5 July 2022: Policy, Finance and Strategy Committee Meeting to consider recommendation from the District Plan Review Subcommittee for adopting Proposed IPI for public notification;

h.    5 July 2022 (TBC): Additional Council meeting to consider the recommendation from the Policy, Finance and Strategy Committee to adopt Proposed IPI for public notification;

i.     By 20 August 2022: Publicly notify the Proposed IPI;

j.     August – September 2022: Submission period;

k.    September – December 2022: Prepare summary of submissions and public notify for further submissions; and

l.     January 2023 to mid-2023: Hearings held and decisions on submissions notified.

Climate Change Impact and Considerations

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

23.   There are no specific climate change impact considerations associated with this matter in terms of whether to consult on a draft plan change. However, there are climate change considerations associated with the IPI itself which will be considered as part of its preparation.

Engagement

24.   An initial Communications and Engagement Plan has been prepared on the basis of Option 1. If the Subcommittee choose Option 2, this plan would be updated to reflect that decision.

 

Legal Considerations

25.   The key legal consideration for the IPI Plan Change is the necessity for Council to meet the requirements of the RMA. The key considerations are meeting the requirement to notify an IPI by 20 August 2022, and to ensure that the IPI Plan Change is prepared in accordance with the requirements set out in the Housing Supply Act. These specific requirements will be reported to the Subcommittee when it is considering the IPI Plan Change content.

Financial Considerations

26.   Engagement under options 1 and 2 can be undertaken within the current District Plan review budget for the 2021/22 financial year.

Appendices

No.

Title

Page

1

Draft Intensification Planning Instrument - Summary Document

18

     

 

 

 

 

 

Author: Nathan Geard

Principal Environmental Policy Analyst

 

 

 

Author: Hamish Wesney

Policy Planner

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewed By: Parvati Rotherham

Head of Planning

 

 

 

Approved By: Helen Oram

Director Environment and Sustainability

 


Attachment 1

Draft Intensification Planning Instrument - Summary Document