1                17 March 2022

HUTT CITY COUNCIL

 

Komiti Iti Arotake Mahere ā-Rohe  |

District Plan Review Subcommittee

 

Minutes of a meeting held via Zoom on

Thursday 17 March 2022 commencing at 12.30pm

 

 

PRESENT:                        Cr S Edwards (Chair)                   Cr B Dyer

Cr N Shaw                                        Ms M Dentice

 

APOLOGIES:                   Deputy Mayor Lewis and Cr Brown.

 

IN ATTENDANCE:         Mr K Puketapu-Dentice, Director, Economy and Development

Ms P Rotherham, Head of Planning

Mr N Geard, Senior Environmental Policy Analyst

Mr S Davis, Policy Planner

Ms E Campbell, Tikanga Māori Policy Planner

Mr C Page, Intermediate Policy Planner

Ms A Doornebosch, Democracy Advisor

Ms T Lealofi, Democracy Advisor

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC BUSINESS

 

 

 

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

Amine

 

2.       APOLOGIES

RESOLVED:  (Cr Edwards/Cr Shaw)                                      Minute No. DPRS22101 (2)

“That the apologies received from Deputy Mayor Lewis and Cr Brown 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/Cr Dyer)                                          Minute No. DPRS 22102 (2)

 

“That the minutes of the meeting of the District Plan Review Subcommittee held on Thursday, 10 February 2022, be confirmed as a true and correct record subject to an amendment, that a paragraph be added under item 6, ‘Cr Dyer spoke against Option 2 and preferred Option 1, which was that both the full District Plan Review be undertaken alongside the development of the Intensification Planning Instrument.  Cr Dyer noted he was concerned that the 12 to 18 month time lapse between these two processes would lead to negative outcomes without the full qualifying matters being included in the District Plan’.”

  

6.

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

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

 

The Principal Environmental Policy Analyst elaborated on the report.   

In response to questions from members, the Principal Environmental Policy Analyst advised the Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS) enabled reasonable development.  He said in some circumstances developers would not meet all standards, which would depend on the size and type of development.  He noted in some circumstances there would need to be trade-offs in standards, or the requirement for a resource consent for breaching a standard.  He advised members could include consideration of outlook space, windows to street and landscaped area matters that were included in Option RZ4.3.   He highlighted there would still be the same density and scale of development with these standards included as they largely related to design only. He advised for the Medium Density Residential Activity Area of the current District Plan there was a site coverage requirement of 60%.  He said community engagement was completed early last year on the wider District Plan review.  He noted this engagement predated the new MDRS requirements for intensification.  He said the Subcommittee and Council could amend the IPI following community engagement.  He noted this could not include amendments that would be more constraining of development but could include more lenient standards.  He said rural residential zones in the District Plan were treated as rural zones.  He noted that the IPI would only apply to residential zones.  He said that Hill Residential Activity Areas and Landscaped Protection Residential Activity Areas were equivalent to large lot residential zones, so these zones had been excluded from the IPI. 

In response to questions from members, the Principal Environmental Policy Analyst advised Council could not fully address the National Planning Standards (NPS) through the IPI but some of these standards could be planned for implementation.  He advised officers did not know if there would be penalties for not meeting the NPS.  He noted officers were interested in community views on development in the IPI relating to building heights and densities in suburban centres including Avalon, Eastbourne, Moera, Stokes Valley and Wainuiomata.  He said it was less clear in the NPS on Urban Development what level of intensification should be enabled in those areas.  He said natural hazard risk as a qualifying matter for some of these areas would also need to be taken into consideration, especially flood risk.  He noted the proposed flood maps for the full District Plan had taken into account sea level rise changes and climate change.  He advised Historic Residential Activity Areas were being rezoned into a combination of General Residential and Medium Density zones which enabled more intensification of building in those areas.  He highlighted that Historic Heritage could still be used as a qualifying matter and Council could still restrict building heights and densities to protect historic heritage values. He advised the Special Residential Activity Area included Boulcott, Woburn and Lowry Bay.  He noted this primarily sought a lower level of development than in a General Residential Activity area.  He said the proposal was to absorb the Special Residential Activity Area into a combination of the General Residential Activity Area and the Medium Density Activity area depending on proximity to train stations and city centres.  He advised that more denser developments and taller buildings would be enabled in Special Residential Activity Areas.  He said officers were considering whether Council could apply a residential character qualifying matter to warrant limiting building heights and densities in this area.  He noted a residential character assessment was completed as part of the full District Plan review.  He said this identified three areas that had a discrete and cohesive residential character which included an area in Woburn.  He said officers would assess if this could be a qualifying matter to be included in the IPI.  He advised the assessment of the Special Residential Character Areas would ultimately be considered by a Hearing Panel, who would make it recommended decision to Council.  He said the Papakāinga housing area was not a specific zone at this stage.  He advised officers needed to consult with Mana Whenua to determine the most appropriate areas for this.

In response to questions from members, the Policy Planner noted where stated within the IPI, the number of storeys for particular zones were the maximum set by Council for that zone.  He said developers would be free to build up to that maximum height or apply for a resource consent to go over the height restriction.  He said officers were not proposing a minimum height at this stage.  He advised height proposals in suburban centres would be part of the public consultation process.

In response to questions from members, the Intermediate Policy Planner said the Financial Contributions Policy could contribute towards issues such as water infrastructure and where development was impacting services around sites. He noted this applied where they were not currently planned for under development contributions.  He said development contributions which were catchment based and designed for longer term planning would include requirements for large scale water supply.  He noted financial contributions could be reactive and did not need to go toward a project identified in the Long Term Plan.  He said if a development was a permitted activity, no design assessment would be required.  He noted if a developer breached a development standard then a resource consent would be required, which enabled officers to assess the design at that time.  He said carparking management plans would not be included in the IPI and would likely be included in a carparking strategy delivered through Council’s Transport team.

In response to a question from a member, the Head of Planning advised officers were awaiting direction from the Minister of the Environment on the requirements for the process following notification of the IPI.

In response to a question from a member, the Director, Environment and Sustainability advised officers would provide targeted engagement within Special Residential Activity Areas, including Boulcott, Lowry Bay and Woburn.

Cr Dyer expressed support for Option 1.  He highlighted this was a plan change championed by central government not local government.  He also highlighted he was hesitant to merge large lot residential areas into general residential zones. He said he considered targeted engagement by way of an information letter drop in these areas would be beneficial.  He asked for financial contribution policies to be well detailed in the development of the IPI.

 

Cr Shaw considered there should be a targeted engagement approach to allay any fears or misunderstandings on the development of the IPI.

 

 

 

 

The Chair foreshadowed his intention to move an additional recommendation to retain 60% of site coverage within the Medium Density Residential Activity Area but amend the Draft IPI to include the outlook space, windows to street and landscaped area matters that are included in Option RZ4.3. 

 

Resolved:   (Cr Edwards/Cr Dyer)                                       Minute No. DPRS 22103 (2)

 

“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;

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

(3)   amends the Draft Intensification Planning Instrument to retain 60% of site coverage within the Medium Density Residential Activity Area, but include consideration of outlook space, windows to street and landscaped area matters that are included in Option RZ4.3.”

 

7.       QUESTIONS

There were no questions.

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.

 

 

There being no further business the Chair declared the meeting closed at 1.44pm.

 

 

 

 

 

Cr S Edwards

CHAIR

 

 

 

CONFIRMED as a true and correct record

Dated this 7th day of April 2022