1                    7 April 2022

HUTT CITY COUNCIL

 

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

 

Minutes of a meeting held via Zoom on
Thursday 7 April 2022 commencing at 2.00pm

 

 

PRESENT:                        Cr S Edwards (Chair)                   Cr K Brown

(via audio-visual link)       Cr B Dyer                                      Deputy Mayor T Lewis

Cr N Shaw                                   

 

APOLOGIES:                   Ms M Dentice

 

IN ATTENDANCE:         Ms J Miller, Chief Executive

(via audio-visual link)       Ms H Oram, Director Environment and Sustainability

Ms P Rotherham, Head of Planning

Mr N Geard, Senior Environmental Policy Analyst

Mr C Page, Intermediate Policy Planner

Ms E Campbell, Tikanga Māori Policy Planner

Mr S Bellamy, Intermediate Policy Planner

Mr S Davis, Policy Planner

Mrs A Doornebosch, 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/Shaw)                                                 Minute No. DPRS22201

“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/Cr Dyer)                                                                                                   Minute No. DPRS 22202

 

“That the minutes of the meeting of the District Plan Review Subcommittee held on Thursday, 17 March 2022, be confirmed as a true and correct record.”

  

6.

Recommendation to TE KAUNIHERA O TE AWA KAIRANGI │COUNCIL – 24 MAY 2022

Intensification Planning Instrument: Financial Contributions Assessment (22/631)

Report No. DPRS2022/2/58 by the Intermediate Policy Planner

 

Mr Dwayne Fletcher from Vale Consulting was in attendance for the item.

 

The Intermediate Policy Planner elaborated on the report.

In response to questions from members, the Intermediate Policy Planner highlighted that financial contribution fees would not have an immediate legal effect until the full District Plan review change was complete.  He noted this could create an influx of consents being lodged.  He said Council could complete ongoing engagement with the development community by pursuing option 2 whilst also considering to extend this into the wider District Plan Review.  He confirmed financial contributions would only be imposed on developments if this created an effect that needed to be managed.  He advised officers would check to see if more recent census data could be added to the base calculation for the distribution of dwellings.

In response to questions from members, Mr Fletcher from Vale Consulting advised it was common for local authorities in New Zealand to use financial contributions.  He said this was to ensure medium density residential developments that would be permitted under the Intensification Planning Instrument were subject to the same financial contributions as those that did not require a resource consent.  He noted this also ensured if local upgrades were required to infrastructure, local authorities could ask for some funding from developers to undertake this. 

In response to questions from members, the Senior Environmental Policy Analyst advised work on the assessment of residential character as a qualifying matter would be reported to the next Subcommittee meeting.  He said officers needed to consider what Council would like to achieve and what the cost would be in relation to financial contributions.  He noted financial contributions could be part of the District Plan review which would enable it to be linked into spatial plan work within Council’s next Long Term Plan.  He said this was a good opportunity to assess development contributions and financial contributions together.  

In response to questions from members, the Head of Planning advised she did not consider there was staff capacity to pursue option 3 at this time.   She highlighted that there was no additional funding set aside for a consultant to undertake this work.

The Chair foreshadowed his intention to move an additional recommendation to ask officers to explore the potential of using option 3 for financial contributions which provided for an increased scope to include option 2 and new provisions to mitigate effects on streetscape and/or environmental offsetting, as part of the wider District Plan Review following the introduction of the Intensification Planning Instrument.

 

 

 

ReCOMMENDED:   (Cr Edwards/Cr Brown)                Minute No. DPRS 22203

 

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

(1)   receives the information contained in the report;

(2)   approves Option 2 for financial contributions in the Intensification Planning Instrument, which provides for limited changes to expand existing financial contributions for off-site services and adjustment to applying reserves financial contributions; and

(3)   asks officers to explore the potential of using Option 3 for financial contributions, which provides for an increased scope to include option 2 and new provisions to mitigate effects on streetscape and/or environmental offsetting, as part of the wider District Plan Review following the introduction of the Intensification Planning Instrument.”

 

7.

Intensification Planning Instrument - Qualifying Matters (22/573)

Report No. DPRS2022/2/59 by the Intermediate Policy Planner

 

Ms A Pirie, Heritage Consultant, WSP was in attendance for the item.

The Intermediate Policy Planner elaborated on the report.

 

For the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga:

In response to questions from members, the Tikanga Māori Policy Planner advised officers could provide further information regarding work on the cultural impact assessment conducted by Mr Morrie Love.  She acknowledged this was completed on behalf of Mr Love’s iwi and for other reasons not specifically related to Council.  She said this had been shared with Council in good faith.  She highlighted there was additional work to be completed and this would not be available in time for the introduction of the Intensification Planning Instrument (IPI).  She noted the officers intent was to continue ongoing consultation with Mana Whenua to give them an opportunity to identify other sites that could be included as part of the wider District Plan review.  She said it was important to ensure all narratives were accurately reflected and agreed to by all partners in the most authentic way.  She noted the priority was to build relationships at a project level so the scope of work ahead was understood and systems were in place that were sustainable.  She said there was a possibility of builds being undertaken on sites of significance.  She noted a way of mitigating this would be to commence this piece of work as soon as possible so when Council was ready to notify the District Plan review, it would be ready to come into effect straight away.  She said there were rules relating to archaeological discoveries that ensured that if something was uncovered any development would need to cease until it was appropriately managed.  She noted this would include urupā

 

For the protection of historic heritage:

In response to questions from members, the Tikanga Māori Policy Planner advised that Council could add historical areas through the IPI but could not list individual historic properties or items.   She said officers were working through the buffer zones around historical precincts in the residential chapters.   She advised there were existing heritage sites in the current District Plan and provisions for those would remain. 

 

For the management of risk from fault rupture hazards:

In response to a question from a member, the Intermediate Policy Planner advised properties newly identified in this zone were the result of GNS Science providing updated information based on further refinement of that fault line area.  He noted the area with the most changes were Manor Park properties.  

 

For the management of impacts on residential character:

In response to questions from members, the Senior Environmental Policy Analyst advised information on residential character areas would be provided to the next Subcommittee meeting.  He said officers had engaged consultants to complete a district wide assessment of residential character.  He said this would only be a description of the character, not making a decision about how or whether it should be protected. 

The Senior Environmental Policy Analyst advised the key issue relating to residential character to be a qualifying matter, would be to have specific requirements about what the characteristic was.  He said officers would have to identify specific sites where that characteristic was and demonstrate that protecting this outweighed the importance of providing for taller houses, more denser development and residential development capacity in general.  He said officers intended to assess the residential character of the special residential activity areas of Boulcott, Lowry Bay and Woburn to see if they warranted protection as a qualifying matter.  He noted these areas were being considered as part of the development of the IPI and wider District Plan review.  He advised these protections were long standing from the 1990s and had not been revisited by Council since the District Plan became operative in 2003.  He said once Council had notified its IPI, the special residential character areas would then be open to submissions from the community.  He noted Council would need to assess, in the coming years, a new requirement under the national planning standards for the local authorities to implement them. He also hoped that better e-plans could be implemented alongside this IPI and not wait for the full district plan.

 

Resolved:   (Cr Edwards/Cr Dyer)                                       Minute No. DPRS 22204

 

“That the Subcommittee:

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

(2)   approves the following approaches for qualifying matters:

(a)   For the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga

       Option 1 – Retaining existing schedule and chapter provisions for Sites of Significance to Māori and existing chapter provisions for the Community Iwi Activity Area;

(b)   For the protection of historic heritage

Option 2 - Use existing heritage areas and heritage areas identified in the Historic Heritage Inventory Review as qualifying matters to address the qualifying matter: The protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development;

(c)   For the management of risk from fault rupture hazards

Option 1 – Update the existing Wellington Fault Special Study Area overlay and retain existing restricted discretionary provisions to address the qualifying matter: The management of significant risks from natural hazards; Wellington Fault Rupture;

(d)   For the management of risk from flood hazards

Option 2 – Develop flood risk overlays and apply a risk-based framework to development within the overlays to address the qualifying matter: The management of significant risks from natural hazards; Flooding;

(e)   For the management of risk from tsunami hazards

Option 2 – Develop Tsunami risk overlays and apply a risk-based framework to development within the overlays to address the qualifying matter: The management of significant risks from natural hazards, Tsunami;

(f)    For the management of risk from coastal hazards

Option 1 – Undertake further technical assessments to best understand the risks associated with the qualifying matter: The management of significant risks from natural hazards, Sea Level Rise/Coastal Inundation; and

(g)   For the management of impacts on residential character

Option 1 – Evaluate whether building heights and density can be constrained to protect residential character as a qualifying matter.”

8.       QUESTIONS

There were no questions.

 

 

9.       CLOSING FORMALITIES - Karakia WHAKAMUTUNGA

 

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 3.55pm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cr S Edwards

CHAIR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONFIRMED as a true and correct record

Dated this 12th day of May 2022