Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

A meeting of the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Friday 7 April 2017

Time:                                    9am

Venue:                                 Council Chamber, Environment Canterbury, 200 Tuam Street

 

 

 

31 March 2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

                           
             


To view copies of Agendas and Minutes, visit:
https://www.ccc.govt.nz/the-council/meetings-agendas-and-minutes/

 


Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee

07 April 2017

UDS Logo

 

 

Committee Members

 

 

 

UDS Independent Chair

Bill Wasley

 

Christchurch City Council

Mayor Lianne Dalziel, Councillors Phil Clearwater and Sara Templeton

 

Environment Canterbury

Chairman David Bedford, Councillors Cynthia Roberts and Peter Skelton

 

Selwyn District Council

Mayor Sam Broughton, Councillors Malcolm Lyall and Mark Alexander

 

Waimakariri District Council

Mayor David Ayers, Councillors Kevin Felstead and Neville Atkinson

 

Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu

Lisa Tumahai

 

New Zealand Transport Agency (observer)

Jim Harland

 

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (observer)

Kelvan Smith

 

Canterbury District Health Board (observer)

David Meates

(Co-opted) Tā Mark Solomon

 

Regenerate Christchurch (observer)

(Co-opted) Ivan Iafeta

 

 

UDS Implementation Manager

Keith Tallentire

ph 941 8590

 

Committee Adviser

Aidan Kimberley

ph 941 6566

 


 

UDS LogoUrban Development Strategy Implementation Committee (UDSIC) Terms of Reference (2015)

 

1.  Purpose

The UDSIC is a joint committee within the meaning of the Local Government Act 2002. In 2015 it absorbed additional functions from the former Recovery Strategy Advisory Committee established by the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority in 2012.

Local authority members are Christchurch City Council, Waimakariri District Council, Selwyn District Council and Canterbury Regional Council. The joint committee has additional public body representation from tangata whenua and other agencies. It has been established to oversee implementation of the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy (UDS), provide advice to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery and ensure integration between earthquake recovery activity and longer term urban development activity, including:

Providing clear and united leadership in delivering the UDS vision and principles;

Promoting integration with the Recovery Strategy for Greater Christchurch, associated recovery plans and programmes including the implementation of the Land Use Recovery Plan (LURP) and Natural Environment Recovery Programme (NERP); and,

Supporting the delivery of aligned tangata whenua objectives as outlined in Ngāi Tahu 2025 and the Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan 2013.

The Committee is a formal joint committee pursuant to the Local Government Act 2002, (Schedule 7, Section 30). The Local Authorities have resolved that the Committee is not discharged at the point of the next election period (in line with clause 30 (7) of schedule 7).

2.  Membership

The local authorities and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu shall each appoint up to three representatives, including their respective Mayors, Chair and Kaiwhakahaere.

The Chief Executives of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) and Canterbury District Health Board (CDHB), and the Regional Director of the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) attend as observers and have speaking rights but in a non-voting capacity.

There shall be an Independent Chair (non-elected member), appointed by the Committee, who has speaking rights and voting capacity.

The standing voting membership is limited to 16 members (including the Independent Chair), but with the power to co-opt up to a maximum of two additional non-voting members where required to ensure effective implementation.

The Committee shall also appoint a Deputy Chair, who shall be elected at the commencement of each triennium, and who shall be a member of the Committee.

In accordance with Section 30A of Schedule 7 to the Local Government Act 2002, the quorum at a meeting of the Committee shall be eight voting members.

Other representatives of voting and non-voting organisations are permitted to attend meetings of the Committee; however attendance at any public excluded session shall only be permitted with the prior approval of the Chair. Likewise, speaking rights of other representatives at Committee meetings (whether in public session or not) shall only be granted with the prior approval of the Chair.

 

 

3.  Meeting Frequency

Monthly, or as necessary and determined by the Independent Chair.

Notification of meetings and the publication of agendas and reports shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Part 7 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

4.  Committee Delegations

The UDS Implementation Committee is delegated the following functions in support of its overall purpose:

General

Overseeing implementation of the UDS and recovery documents, including the LURP, NERP and associated documents, such as the Greater Christchurch Transport Statement

Advising the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority on the development and implementation of the Recovery Strategy and any associated matters, including programmes, plans, projects, systems, processes and resources led by CERA or any other central government agency for the purposes of the recovery of greater Christchurch (as defined in the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011)

Ensuring the integration between the UDS and any of the foregoing matters

Ensuring organisational systems and resources support implementation

Monitoring and reporting progress against actions and milestones

Managing any risks identified in implementation

Identifying and resolving any implementation inconsistencies arising from partner consultation processes

Facilitating consultation and establishing forums as necessary to support implementation and review

Periodically reviewing and recommending any adjustments to the UDS and recovery documents, including the LURP and NERP.

 

Specific

Selecting and appointing an Independent Chair and Deputy Chair

Taking responsibility for implementing any actions specifically allocated to the Committee

Implementing a Memorandum of Understanding, as adopted by the Committee for each triennial period, to provide and maintain partnership relationships and provide for the resolution of any conflict

Advocate for statements of intent of council owned companies to be aligned to implementation of the UDS and recovery documents, including the LURP and NERP where appropriate.

Champion integration and implementation through partner strategies, programmes, plans and policy instruments (including the Regional Policy Statement, Regional and District Plans, Long Term Plans (LTPs), Annual Plans, transport programmes and triennial agreements) and through partnerships with other sectors such as health, education and business.

Establish protocols to ensure that implementation, where necessary, is consistent, collaborative and/or coordinated to achieve optimal outcomes.

Making submissions, as appropriate, on Government proposals and other initiatives relevant to the implementation of the UDS and recovery documents, including the LURP and NERP.

 


Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee

07 April 2017

UDS Logo

 

AGENDA ITEMS

 

1.       Apologies................................................................................................................................... 7

2.       Declarations of Interest............................................................................................................ 7

3.       Deputations by Appointment.................................................................................................. 7

4.       Confirmation of Previous Minutes.......................................................................................... 7

STAFF REPORTS

5.       Christchurch Northern Access - Transport Options............................................................. 15

6.       Settlement Pattern Review.................................................................................................... 21

7.       Regeneration Protocol........................................................................................................... 27

8.       Advice from the Chief Executives Advisory Group on a revised Memorandum of Agreement for the Committee.................................................................................................................. 31

9.       The Productivity Commission's 'Better Urban Planning' Report ....................................... 59

10.     Urban Development and Regeneration update................................................................... 65   

 


 

Standing Items

 


Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee

07 April 2017

UDS Logo

 

 

1.   Apologies

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

2.   Declarations of Interest

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

3.   Deputations by Appointment

3.1

Matt Doocey, Member of Parliament for Waimakariri, will address the Committee and present a petition in support of adding a third southbound lane to the Waimakariri Motorway Bridge.

 

3.2

Ali Jones, Chair – Papanui-Innes Community Board, will address the committee regarding the impact on housing and access in affected communities with respect to altered and increased traffic flows both as a consequence of the downstream effects of the Northern Arterial Motorway and of housing intensification

 

4.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

That the minutes of the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee meeting held on Friday, 3 March 2017  be confirmed (refer page 8).


Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee

07 April 2017

UDS Logo

 

 

 

Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Friday 3 March 2017

Time:                                    9am

Venue:                                 Council Chamber, Environment Canterbury, 200 Tuam Street

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Members

Bill Wasley                                         

Chairman David Bedford, Environment Canterbury           

Councillor Cynthia Roberts, Environment Canterbury       

Councillor Peter Skelton, Environment Canterbury            

Mayor Sam Broughton, Selwyn District Council       

Deputy Mayor Malcolm Lyall, Selwyn District Council        

Councillor Mark Alexander, Selwyn District Council            

Mayor David Ayers, Waimakariri District Council     

Deputy Mayor Kevin Felstead, Waimakariri District Council         

Councillor Neville Atkinson, Waimakariri District Council  

Mayor Lianne Dalziel, Christchurch City Council       

Councillor Phil Clearwater, Christchurch City Council         

Councillor Sara Templeton, Christchurch City Council        

Quentin Hix, Te Rūnanga O Ngāi Tahu

(Non-voting member) Jim Harland , New Zealand Transport Agency  

(Non-voting member) Tā Mark Solomon, Canterbury District Health Board  

(Non-voting member) Kelvan Smith , Greater Christchurch Group (DPMC)  

 

 

2 March 2017

 

 

 

Keith Tallentire

UDS Implementation Manager

 

Aidan Kimberley

Committee and Hearings Advisor

941 6566

aidan.kimberley@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

 


  

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies

Committee Resolved GCUC/2017/00010

That the apologies from Lisa Tumahai and David Meates be accepted.

Malcolm Lyall/Sara Templeton                                                                                                                              Carried

 

The Chairperson acknowledged Quentin Hix, who was attending the committee for the first time on behalf of Te Rūnanga O Ngāi Tahu. The Chairperson also welcomed Tā Mark Solomon who was Co‑Opted to the Committee in his capacity as a Board member and currently Acting Chairperson of the Canterbury District Health Board.

11  Co-Opt Additional Member

 

Committee Resolved GCUC/2017/00011

That the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee Co-Opt Tā Mark Solomon (Canterbury District Health Board Representative) as a non-voting member until the adoption of the Committee’s new Terms of Reference.

Mark Alexander/David Ayers                                                                                                                                 Carried

2.   Declarations of Interest

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

3.   Deputations by Appointment

There were no deputations by appointment.

4.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Committee Resolved GCUC/2017/00012

Committee Decision

That the minutes of the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee meeting held on Friday, 3 February 2017 be confirmed.

Peter Skelton/Sam Broughton                                                                                                                              Carried

 

5.   Strategic Approach to Regeneration Planning

 

The Committee discussed the geographical application of the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act and Regenerate Christchurch’s mandate. Staff advised that Regenerate Christchurch can only propose regeneration plans within the boundaries of Christchurch City but still has an advisory role in the Waimakariri and Selwyn districts as per the remit of the Regeneration legislation.

In providing feedback to Regenerate Christchurch the following points were raised:

·    It is important to know what criteria will be used to assess regeneration priorities, and to be mindful that a regeneration plan will not always be the most appropriate mechanism to achieve certain outcomes.

·    There is a need to acknowledge work that is already underway, such as the Waimakariri Red Zone Recovery Plan which was in place before the Regeneration legislation was enacted.

·    The Committee reiterated previous statements about the need to be prompt given the legislation expires in 2021, to make the most of the opportunities it provides.

 

Committee Resolved GCUC/2017/00013

Joint Committee Decision

That the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee:

1.         Agree that a proposed regeneration planning framework be provided to this Committee for discussion and adoption at its next meeting.

Sara Templeton/Cynthia Roberts                                                                                                                         Carried

 

6.   Advice from the Chief Executives Advisory Group to the Committee on a planned strategy review

 

Chrissie Williams and Keith Tallentire delivered presentations. Bill Bayfield, Environment Canterbury Chief Executive, also spoke to this item.

A detailed discussion was held on the planned strategy review and the implications of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity (NPS). Staff advised that the NPS will require a significantly higher standard and quantity of data to support Urban Development planning than is currently available, and the committee should be aware that the staff capacity required to comply with this standard will be substantial.

During the discussion, the following points were also raised:

·    Consideration needs to be given regarding how to align this work with the district plan review processes underway throughout the Greater Christchurch region

·    A review of the Regional Policy Statement may prove to be a critical step in order to achieve the desired outcome for a strategy review, particularly given the requirements in the NPS.

·    If enacted the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill, currently being considered by Parliament’s Local Government and Environment Select Committee, and the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act 2016 may offer avenues to expedite any review process.

·    A review would need to encompass transport and travel choice matters as these are interrelated with land use and urban form

·    Care will need to be taken to ensure the planning process engages people’s real life expectations. Little will be gained if the process delivers a planning framework that is not palatable to the market.

·    Chairperson Bill Wasley suggested that there may be an opportunity to collaborate with Local Authorities in Waikato and Bay of Plenty to address aspects of the NPS where there are matters of common interest.

 

Committee Resolved GCUC/2017/00014

Joint Committee Decision

That the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee:

1.         Endorse an approach to the first phase of a strategy review being a focus on the settlement planning aspects necessary to meet the requirements of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity.

2.         Agree that such a settlement pattern review (which integrates the work necessary to meet the requirements of the National Policy Statement) is undertaken through a collaborative partnership arrangement overseen by this Committee.

3.         Note that a report be presented to the next meeting of the Committee outlining the project scope, timeframes and resource requirements to undertake a settlement pattern review.

Sam Broughton/Lianne Dalziel                                                                                                                               Carried

The meeting adjourned at 10:40am and resumed at 10:59am

7.   Advice from the Chief Executives Advisory Group on a revised Memorandum of Agreement for the Committee

The Committee was informed that Regenerate Christchurch agree with the content of the agreement, subject to two minor amendments of a technical nature. The map of Greater Christchurch referred to in the interpretation section will also need to be added.

Jim Harland requested that the draft be updated to reflect his new position title – Director Regional Relationships.

Mayor Lianne Dalziel queried Regenerate Christchurch’s decision to nominate a Board Member to sit on the committee as opposed to an executive staff member. Staff will report back to the committee on this.

Following the two motions set out below, the Chairperson advised that the remainder of this item would be left to lie on the table to allow staff to follow up on any outstanding issues and present an updated draft to the next committee meeting.

 

Committee Resolved GCUC/2017/00015

Joint Committee Decision

That the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee request that paragraph 4.1(vii) of the draft Memorandum of Agreement be changed by deleting the first eleven words and replacing them with: “The Board Chairperson or a Board Member of the Canterbury District Health Board”

Member Skelton/Mayor  Broughton                                                                                                                  Carried

 

Committee Resolved GCUC/2017/00016

That the necessary amendments are made to the draft Memorandum of Agreement to give the Canterbury District Health Board Representative voting rights.

Cynthia Roberts/Phil Clearwater                                                                                                                          Carried

 

8.   Urban Development Authorities Discussion Document

 

Committee Resolved GCUC/2017/00017

Joint Committee Decision

That the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee:

1.         Agree that a submission on behalf of the UDS Partnership is prepared on the Urban Development Authority discussion document in liaison with partner staff and officers supporting the Canterbury Mayoral Forum.

Malcolm Lyall/David Bedford                                                                                                                                 Carried

 

9.   Lyttelton Port Recovery Plan Implementation Progress Report

The Committee noted the slow progress towards resolving an agreement on public access to Te Ana (Dampier Bay) and expressed a desire that this matter be concluded as soon as possible. The Committee was informed that the key issue was on the timeframe for enabling public access linked to the need to complete repair works and was an issue primarily between the City Council and the LPC.

 

Committee Resolved GCUC/2017/00018

Joint Committee Decision

That the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee:

1.         Receive the report

Lianne Dalziel/Sara Templeton                                                                                                                              Carried

 

10. Urban Development and Regeneration update

Councillor Sara Templeton suggested seeking updates from a wider range of sources given the extended scope and membership of the committee.

 

Committee Resolved GCUC/2017/00019

Joint Committee Decision

That the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee:

1.         Note the report and receive the attached Urban Development and Regeneration Update. 

Mark Alexander/Cynthia Roberts                                                                                                                        Carried

 

 

   

Meeting concluded at 11:46am.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2017

 

Bill Wasley

Chairperson

 


Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee

07 April 2017

UDS Logo

 

 

5.        Christchurch Northern Access - Transport Options

Reference:

17/328878

Contact:

Steve Higgs

ktallentire@greaterchristchurch.org.nz

03 941 8590

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       To seek UDSIC support for transport improvements for the Christchurch northern access.

2.   Relationship to Partnership Objectives

2.1       Priority Action (k) from the 2016 Strategy Update relates to ‘Improve transport system performance and travel choices in Greater Christchurch’ and this Committee has previously adopted the Greater Christchurch Transport Statement.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee:

1.         Support the construction of a 3rd southbound motorway lane across the Waimakariri Bridge and a separated cycleway. 

2.         Support the provision for a High Occupancy Vehicle lane between Tram Road and QEII Drive to be potentially used by a combination of T2 vehicles, buses and freight.

3.         Note that the construction can be included as part of the Northern Arterial project delivered through the Christchurch Northern Corridor Alliance.

4.         Note that a multi-modal solution is proposed that will improve travel time reliability and safety and provide improved travel choices for higher occupancy vehicle use, public transport and cycling. 

5.         Note that there will be additional related financial implications for other partners should the matter proceed, including park and ride facilities, changes to public transport services and supporting cycle facilities in Waimakariri District.

 

 

4.   Context

4.1       The NZ Transport Agency has been working with its stakeholders to develop a programme business case for the State Highway 1 and 71 corridors (between Ashley and Belfast). It is part of a wider SH1 Picton to Christchurch corridor investigation of the transport needs over the next 30 years. This work has identified an immediate capacity problem at the Tram Road onramp to the Waimakariri Bridge following the land-use changes after the Christchurch earthquakes. This will need addressing within the next 5 years. 

4.2       The capacity issue leads to unpredictable travel times, delays and large queues accessing the motorway and subsequent impacts on Main North Road traffic flows and bus reliability. In considering possible solutions around Waimakariri Bridge there is a need to be cognisant of the downstream impacts on Cranford Street and surrounding residential streets in Christchurch City. 

4.3       Resolution of these issues requires an integrated transport solution in the long term.  The current travel behaviour of 85% single occupancy vehicles is not sustainable and any solutions need to ensure that this dominance of single occupancy vehicles is addressed.   Therefore while the focus of this report is on providing a 3rd southbound motorway lane from Tram Road, a smarter solution is needed to encourage efficient lane use by higher occupancy vehicles (HOV), improve public transport reliability and provide a safe cycling option between Belfast and Kaiapoi. This approach should send strong signals for people to change their travel behaviour.

4.4       Further to some extensive partner staff collaboration over the last few months this matter was discussed at the Chief Executives Advisory Group meeting in March and the recommendations endorsed for consideration by this Committee.

5.   Background

5.1       The 2007 Urban Development Strategy identified an initial 10 year period of predominately greenfield growth (65%) apportioned across Christchurch City and Waimakariri and Selwyn Districts with increasing emphasis on intensification over the full 35 year strategy.  Earlier work on the northern network concluded that additional demand from Waimakariri District could be managed through travel demand management initiatives across the network.  Therefore the roads of national significance projects included only third northbound lane on the Waimakariri Bridge to manage weave issues at the confluence of the WBB and Northern Arterial. 

5.2       The 2010 earthquakes and subsequent policy response has meant that population growth in Waimakariri District has been strong, although remaining within the agreed UDS policy framework.  Initial travel demand initiatives and minor network improvements were implemented from 2014 to manage traffic growth prior to construction of the Northern Arterial and Western Belfast Bypass (WBB). 

5.3       The NZ Transport Agency investigation of SH1 through the programme business case has identified that travel demand over the Waimakariri Bridge will exceed capacity in the morning peak leading to travel time unreliability both on the motorway and Main North Road that affects public transport services.  Modelled growth in person trips is projected to increase by 25% by 2025 and 50% by 2041 leading increased delays and unreliability; although there is a degree of uncertainty of this impact due to improved technology and workforce trends. 

6.   Network Improvement Proposal

6.1       An outline of the key components of the draft business case programme is included as Attachment A to this report. The recommendations include Waimakariri Bridge improvements as follows:

·    Constructing a 3rd southbound motorway lane on the Waimakariri Bridge from Tram Road to the commencement of the Northern Arterial (i.e. where the WBB and Northern Arterial connections into Christchurch diverge).  A concept plan is included as Attachment B.

·    A cycleway on the eastern side of the Waimakariri Bridge connecting the proposed Northern Arterial cycleway (finishing at Empire Road off-Ramp) with Main North Road (and Kaiapoi) north of the river.  This would provide a safe cycle link between the Major Cycleway network in Christchurch and the Waimakariri District network.  There is also provision for the cycleway to link into the Waimakariri Regional Park via the stopbanks for recreation purposes

·    The introduction of a ‘Smart Motorway’ concept for optimised lane use by incorporating a High Occupancy Vehicle lane between Tram Road and QEII Drive.  The safe operational configuration of this may require the closure of Empire Road and the subsequent impacts on local access may require construction of a southbound off-ramp to Tram Road.

6.2       The concept for a High Occupancy Vehicle Lane requires more detailed design to determine its configuration and how it will be used.  However the lane will generally be located between Tram Road On-Ramp and QEII Drive and could be used by a combination of T2 vehicles, buses and freight.

6.3       There is an opportunity to save costs on these improvements if they are coordinated with the Northern Arterial project. Using the Christchurch Northern Corridor Alliance equipment to construct the agreed northbound lane to build the proposed southbound lane results in this additional work costing an estimated $20 million as opposed to $34 million (estimated) if the southbound lane and ancillary works are constructed at a later date – i.e. a cost saving of $14 million.  The NZ Transport Agency has therefore been discussing with its UDS partners whether the immediate capacity upgrade (ahead of implementing the programme case) is the right response.

7.   Network Outcomes

7.1       The capacity issue across the Waimakariri River requires a network response to deliver transport outcomes for safety and travel time reliability of all modes of travel.  However we also need to ensure that adverse traffic, social and environmental impacts do not occur at the southern end of the Northern Arterial corridor. 

7.2       A key concern of the UDS partners is that additional road capacity has the potential to increase single occupant vehicle trips between Waimakariri and Christchurch City.  The growth in Waimakariri District provided for in the Land Use Recovery Plan and Regional Policy Statement means that ongoing use of single occupant vehicles entering the urban road network of Christchurch is not sustainable in the long term. In addition, whilst less relevant to the focus of this report on Waimakariri bridge improvements, there is substantial projected growth in trips to the CBD from the northern part of Christchurch City. If there is no change in the way people travel the additional vehicles from the north could result in significant congestion and social impacts through St Albans and the central city in the future. This concern will be managed by the Partners seeking a more sustainable use of the additional capacity by supporting travel demand management and encouraging higher vehicle occupancy use. 

7.3       The successful implementation of the recommended network improvements could provide a slight improvement on the downstream impacts when compared to the impacts from the current Northern Corridor project. The City Council staff are working closely with the local community on developing a plan to manage the downstream impacts.

7.4       The proposed changes to the network will provide travel time reliability and improved safety through a multimodal solution that:

·    Enables vehicles to use the preferred motorway network rather than Main North Road;

·    Reduces traffic on Main North Road improves travel time reliability for public transport services thereby providing better travel choice;

·    Enables choice for public transport services such as express services using the Motorway between Christchurch and Rangiora.

·    Improves travel times for high occupancy vehicles thereby encouraging increased use of carpooling (ridesharing);

·    Provides a safe cycle option between Kaiapoi and Belfast.

7.5       The outcomes are consistent with and will reinforce other significant investment in An Accessible City, the Major Cycleway network, public transport services, and demand management initiatives already underway or budgeted for by Waimakariri District Council. 

7.6       The longer term benefits of taking a wider network approach are to get people to think about how they travel and changing behaviour to choose more sustainable transport options, especially during the morning commuter peak period.

7.7       In association with the improvements on the Waimakariri Bridge, the wider programme includes transport system activities such as the development of park and ride facilities (for bus and high occupancy vehicle connection), cycle routes to Kaiapoi, public transport service improvements and travel behaviour change programmes will be the responsibility of the activity owners. Partner owners include Waimakariri District, Environment Canterbury and the UDS partnership for the Travel Demand Management programme. The detail and level of investment for supporting initiatives to support travel behaviour change will be developed through the responsible partner business cases.   Following this a funding plan will be developed by the partners. 

8.   Opportunities

8.1       The HOV concept provides a significant opportunity to signal travel behaviour change and it would be a first for Christchurch.  It will require significant further work to develop the HOV lane and to develop the supporting plan for travel option improvements and travel demand management.  Furthermore, there is also a necessity to ensure that any HOV lanes are managed and enforced.  There is a three year window to develop the right messaging and public education prior to the Northern Arterial becoming operational.  The work being developed by Waimakariri District, NZ Transport Agency, Environment Canterbury and Christchurch City include behaviour change programmes that need to be implemented and co-ordinated during this period.

9.   Process

9.1       This proposal will require NZ Transport Agency Board approval.  Development of the proposed plan has occurred at staff level and the Board has not been approached for a decision. This paper and further conversation with the UDSIC is intended to seek support for the proposal.

9.2       NZ Transport Agency staff will then seek a decision from the Board at the June 2017 meeting. The usual assessment process on value for money will apply. 

9.3       The proposal will require a variation to the Regional Land Transport Plan and alteration to the designation under the RMA. This will include public consultation and staff are developing a consultation plan which will include potentially affected communities in St Albans and around the Empire Road off ramp. If possible, this consultation will be co-ordinated with the consultation that Christchurch City Council will be carrying out on the Northern Arterial Extension and Cranford Street Upgrade Downstream Effects Management Plan.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Key components of the draft business case programme

19

b

3rd southbound lane concept plan

20

 

 


Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee

07 April 2017

UDS Logo

 

PDF Creator


Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee

07 April 2017

UDS Logo

 

PDF Creator


Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee

07 April 2017

UDS Logo

 

 

6.        Settlement Pattern Review

Reference:

17/321692

Contact:

Keith Tallentire

ktallentire@greaterchristchurch.org.nz

03 941 8590

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to outline the project scope, timeframes and resource requirements for a Settlement Pattern Review and seek Committee endorsement for the planned approach.

2.   Relationship to Partnership Objectives

2.1       The Settlement Pattern Review complements the work already undertaken to complete the 2016 Strategy Update and helps implement a number of Priority Actions contained in that document.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee:

1.         Endorses the Settlement Pattern Review project scope and assumptions as outlined in this report.

2.         Notes the initial assessment of the project resource requirements and the planned delivery arrangements.

3.         Notes the role of the Project Review Group and the Chief Executives Advisory Group in overseeing project delivery and ensuring timely reporting to this Committee on key milestones. 

 

 

4.   Background

4.1       At the last meeting of this Committee it was resolved that the first phase of a strategy review focus on the settlement planning aspects necessary to meet the requirements of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity (NPS-UDC).

4.2       The Committee agreed that this work be undertaken collaboratively and that the initiative is overseen by this Committee.

4.3       A project brief was presented to the March meeting of the Chief Executives Advisory Group (CEAG). This report summarises the key elements of that project brief.

4.4       Some elements of the Settlement Pattern Review will need refinement in the early phases of its implementation and as NPS-UDC supporting guidance is released by the Ministry for the Environment during the course of 2017.

4.5       A presentation will be provided to the Committee as part of this agenda item to elaborate on some of the key elements of the project.

 

5.   Project scope, timeframes and resource requirements

Scope

5.1       The 2016 Strategy Update was endorsed by the UDS Partnership in August 2016. The document updates the 2007 Strategy to respond to the significant events and changes that have occurred since its release. It did not attempt to revise the land-use framework set out in the Land Use Recovery Plan (LURP) and included in Chapter 6 of the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement.

5.2       The 2007 Strategy horizon is for a thirty-five year period to 2041, the LURP horizon is for a recovery period until 2028. The NPS-UDC requires local authorities to ensure sufficient development capacity is identified for a 30 year period, aligning with that required for infrastructure strategies as part of the preparation of Long Term Plans.

5.3       As well as meeting the development capacity objectives of the NPS-UDC a robust settlement pattern review would reflect on and integrate the broader drivers and matters that comprise sustainable urban planning.

5.4       Significant work has already been undertaken in this regard since the publication of the 2007 Strategy and indeed the adoption of the LURP. The Settlement Pattern Review can benefit from this work in developing a renewed approach that re-establishes a 30+ year horizon.

5.5       The primary project objective for the Settlement Pattern Review is:

·   To enable the local authorities across Greater Christchurch to collaboratively review the existing settlement pattern arrangements and ensure they fulfil their statutory obligations under the NPS-UDC.

5.6       A further objective is:

·   ensure appropriate alignment between the Settlement Pattern Review and:

the District Plan review underway in Selwyn District

the District Development Strategy and District Plan review underway  in Waimakariri District

the Christchurch District Plan

the Greater Christchurch Transport Statement, Regional Land Transport Plan and Regional Public Transport Plan, and

the development by councils of 2018-2028 Long Term Plans and 30-year infrastructure strategies.

5.7       The project scope elements that underlie these objectives are identified in the table below:

SPR Project scope:

i.      review existing arrangements for implementing the current settlement pattern.

ii.     propose implementation options for a renewed settlement pattern

iii.    assess settlement pattern influences inside and outside the current geographic boundary

iv.   assess currently enabled development capacity

v.    determine the short/medium/long term feasibility of currently enabled development capacity

vi.   review demographic and other data and associated projections

vii.  assess future demand for housing and business land (PB1) through to 2050

viii. assess the market segmentation for housing and business demands

ix.   propose options to meet any identified development capacity shortfall

x.    propose targets for insertion into CRPS (PC5) and district plans (PC9)

xi.   develop a future development strategy (PC12-14)

xii.  collate and report on a range of market and other indicators (PB6-7)

xiii. commission work where necessary in support of the project scope

xiv. contract additional expertise to support a coordinated collaborative approach

xv.  report to CEAG and governance committee(s) on progress and endorsement

 

 

Assumptions

5.8       Four assumptions required to clarify the content of the project brief and the tasks required to complete the Settlement Pattern Review are:

·   The geographic focus for the Settlement Pattern Review will be the Greater Christchurch area as identified in the UDS and LURP, albeit that settlement pattern influences inside and outside the current geographic boundary will be assessed

·   As a starting point, the Statistics NZ medium population and household projections will underpin demographic modelling for the Settlement Pattern Review

·   Planning options and responses developed as part of the Settlement Pattern Review , and to meet the requirements of a Future Development Strategy, will be based on those most appropriate for the sub-region as a whole, with a starting point being the planning framework and development capacity outlined in the CRPS, including the identified infrastructure boundary

·   The Settlement Pattern Review will address and re-evaluate other matters that are not specifically required to be addressed to comply with the NSP-UDS.

 

Phases

5.9       The project brief identifies five phases to delivering the Settlement Pattern Review, elements of which will run concurrently. The phases are:

·   Project Brief and Scope

·   Baseline Information and Monitoring Indicators

·   Housing and Business Development Capacity

·   Responsive Planning

·   Future Development Strategy

5.10    The tasks within each phase are identified in the project brief.

5.11    An initial task to help refine the project brief is to undertake a high-level rapid capacity assessment based on the land availability monitoring undertaken by each territorial authority.

 

Milestones

5.12    Key milestones for the Settlement Pattern Review align with those required through the NPS-UDC, in particular:

·   Establishing a suite of monitoring indicators by June 2017

·   Completing a housing and business development capacity assessment by December 2017

·   Completing a Future Development Strategy by December 2018

5.13    Each of these key milestones would be reported to this Committee for endorsement, with the final Future Development Strategy requiring ratification at the governance meetings of individual partners.

 

Consultation

5.14    The NPS-UDC requires local authorities to seek the “input from iwi authorities, the property development sector, significant landowners, social housing providers, requiring authorities and infrastructure providers” as part of the development of the housing and business development capacity assessment.

5.15    The NPS-UDC also requires consultation compliant with either Part 6 of the LGA2002 or Schedule 1 of the RMA1991 when completing the future development strategy.

5.16    An early task identified in the project brief is to prepare a communications and engagement plan as the above requirements represent the minimum requirement under the NPS-UDC and a settlement pattern review would benefit from a wider engagement process.

5.17    Additionally, the project brief highlights the importance of ensuring the values and aspirations of Ngāi Tahu are considered early in the process and that timely and appropriate engagement mechanisms with papatipu rūnanga are established.

 

Resourcing requirements

5.18    The Settlement Pattern Review will require the collaborative input from partner staff and will be supported by some additional coordinating resources for project management, data collation and technical analysis.

5.19    Some additional work will likely be required from external consultants, particularly in relation to assessing business development capacity and commercial feasibility matters. The scope and scale of this work will be refined as the project progresses.

5.20    Aspects of the Settlement Pattern Review can support District Plan Review work underway in Selwyn and Waimakariri.

5.21    The initial budget estimate for the project was considered by CEAG and can be met within the current UDS Budget as the planned strategy review was factored into the 2016/17 financial planning for UDS activity.

 

Delivery arrangements

5.22    The Settlement Pattern Review would use existing UDS staff coordination groups as they key mechanism to obtain input and ensure alignment and integration.

5.23    The UDS Implementation Manager would be the day-to-day Project Leader, supported by the additional resources highlighted above.

5.24    A Project Review Group, acting on behalf of the CEAG, would provide direction to the Project Leader and monitor progress, ensure the achievement of key milestones and help manage any project risks. This group would comprise the Independent Chair and 2-3 other senior representatives and would draw in expertise from similar work recently completed or underway through the SmartGrowth (Bay of Plenty) and FutureProof (Waikato) initiatives.

5.25    The Project Review Group would be responsible for any minor amendments and refinement of the project brief, including more formal review points after six months and 12 months from commencement.

 

Work Underway

5.26    As some of the deadlines for completing NPS-UDC work are relatively tight work has commenced in a number of areas, including:

·   Identifying and collating data sources for quarterly monitoring dashboards

·   Initial scoping of additional information required for a robust evidence base but not currently available from within the partner organisations

·   Identifying potential candidates for the additional coordination roles and ensuring early availability and familiarity with the existing context in Greater Christchurch

·   Contacting the SmartGrowth and FutureProof initiatives to identify opportunities for sharing information and collaborative working.

·   Commencing the rapid capacity assessment to help refine the project brief.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 


Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee

07 April 2017

UDS Logo

 

 

7.        Regeneration Protocol

Reference:

17/326860

Contact:

Ivan Iafeta

info@regeneratechristchurch.nz

03 353 9600

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       This report recommends that the Urban Development Implementation Committee (UDSIC) consider and adopt the attached draft Regeneration Protocol to enable a strategic approach to the application of regeneration powers under the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act 2016 (the Act) (Attachment A)

2.   Relationship to Partnership Objectives

2.1       Regeneration is one of the seven underlying principles of the Urban Development Strategy (UDS).

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee:

1.         Adopt the draft Regeneration Protocol (Attachment A) subject to any changes made at the meeting

2.         Note that the adopted protocol will be incorporated into the wider Communications Protocol that is currently being developed for Committee consideration and which would form part of a Memorandum of Agreement for the Committee.

 

 

4.   Context/Background

4.1       On 3 March 2017, UDSIC endorsed the proposal to develop a Regeneration Framework to guide regeneration activities, to provide confidence initiatives are well planned, co-ordinated and there is a clear view of what needs to be achieved before the Act expires in 2021. UDSIC also noted the need for prompt responses from its partners when developing regeneration plans and a desire to use the Act wisely before its expiry.

4.2       On 22 March 2017 the Chief Executives Advisory Group (CEAG):

4.2.1   considered and supported a set of high level principles that could guide early socialisation of partners’ interests to exercise powers under the Act;

4.2.2   noted that such principles should be set within a protocol that UDSIC can consider; and

4.2.3   agreed that a paper outlining a draft regeneration protocol be prepared for UDSIC consideration on 7 April 2017.

5.   Discussion

Context

5.1       Any strategic approach to the regeneration of greater Christchurch will be more successful if it acknowledges and utilises the existing role of UDSIC in providing strategic leadership, oversight and co-ordination across greater Christchurch. As such, it is proposed that partners (those with a role under the Act) use UDSIC as the forum for early socialisation of partners’ interests to exercise the regeneration planning powers under the Act (i.e. those set out in Part one, subpart 2 only).

5.2       In practice, this would mean that officials from partner agencies would put forward any potential interests via the UDSIC governance structure; officials at the Senior Managers’ Group and CEAG; as well as governors at USDIC.

Draft Regeneration Protocol

5.3       To enable the early socialisation of partners’ interests, it is recommended the high level guiding principles considered by CEAG now be formalised as UDSIC’s Regeneration Protocol. Its function would be to act as guiding document setting out the preferred conduct and procedures to be followed by all partners when seeking to use powers under the Act. A draft Regeneration Protocol is attached for consideration and approval (Attachment A).

5.4       For avoidance of doubt, the draft Regeneration Protocol:

5.4.1   does not provide UDSIC with any decision rights over partners’ decision to avail themselves of the powers under the Act and nothing in this protocol detracts from the provisions in the Act;

5.4.2   does not apply to engagement on matters outside the ambit of the Act; and

5.4.3   is simply a means to enable a discussion about prioritisation and resourcing requirements. 

5.5       It is acknowledged the UDS partners such as the New Zealand Transport Agency and the Canterbury District Health Board, while they may have an indirect interest in proposals, have no formal roles under the Act.  As such, due consideration is required on what extent those agencies will be involved in the discussion but noting that opportunities for those agencies to participate in the conversation is beneficial.

5.6       If adopted, the draft Regeneration Protocol will be incorporated within the wider Communications Protocol outlined in the draft Memorandum of Agreement (the subject of a separate item on this Agenda) that is currently being developed for consideration at a future meeting of this Committee. This will ensure that all engagement between partners (both related to the Act and on other matters) are consistent and aligned.

Regeneration Framework to support prioritisation of strategic regeneration opportunities

5.7       A draft Cranford Regeneration Plan has been prepared by the Christchurch City Council and was publicly notified on 30 March.  In addition, the Joint Letter of Expectations to Regenerate Christchurch identifies three initial priority areas; Central City, Residential red zones and New Brighton.

5.8       Regenerate Christchurch is already working with the Christchurch City Council, Canterbury Regional Council, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to identify and maximise opportunities to use the powers in the Act for the Christchurch district.  The focus is on prioritising those opportunities that offer the greatest regeneration for Christchurch and greater Christchurch.

5.9       It is anticipated that the strategic approach will provide clear strategic outcomes, and a methodology that can be used to help identify potential opportunities, as well as suggesting how they might be prioritised.  As these opportunities are identified and prioritised, the range of options available for progressing them can be assessed. These may include Regeneration strategies, Regeneration Plans, section 71 powers under the Act or other options such as Resource Management Act processes and non-statutory plans. This will help to determine the need to use the powers under the Act.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft Regeneration Protocol

30

 

 


Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee

07 April 2017

UDS Logo

 

PDF Creator


Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee

07 April 2017

UDS Logo

 

 

8.        Advice from the Chief Executives Advisory Group on a revised Memorandum of Agreement for the Committee

Reference:

17/315938

Contact:

Keith Tallentire

ktallentire@greaterchristchurch.org.nz

941 8590

 

 

Secretarial Note

 

At its meeting held on 3 March 2017, the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee considered a report on a revised Memorandum of Agreement for the Committee. The Committee passed resolutions to amend the draft Agreement to give the Canterbury District Health Board representative voting rights, and stipulate that the representative should be the Board Chair or a Board Member. A query was also raised regarding Regenerate Christchurch being represented on the Committee by a Board Member. The remainder of the report was then left to lie on the table to allow the Independent Chair and staff to follow up on outstanding issues and bring an updated draft Agreement to the Committee.

 

The report which was left to lie on the table follows, but please be advised of the following amendments:

1.         Following legal advice recommendation 2(f) has been amended to ensure that it complies with the requirements of Schedule 7 Clause 30(7) of the Local Government Act 2002.

2.         The following changes have been made to the proposed Memorandum of Agreement (Attachment B):

a.         A map of the area referred to as Greater Christchurch has been inserted following section 3.

b.         Section 4 (membership) has been updated to reflect the changes requested by the Committee in March related to the Canterbury District Health Board’s membership. A further change stipulates that the Regenerate Christchurch representative on the Committee will be the Chief Executive.

c.         A minor change has been made to the deputation guidelines to clarify the advice on when deputations can be refused or terminated.

d.         Canterbury District Health Board has been added to the list of voting partners who need to endorse the Memorandum of Agreement.

e.         Other non-material changes were made to the wording.


 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Chief Executives Advisory Group (CEAG) to recommend a revised Memorandum of Agreement for the Committee for subsequent ratification at individual partner governance meetings.

2.   Relationship to Partnership Objectives

2.1       This report responds to the resolution outlined in paragraph 4.1 and supports the visible and collaborative leadership objective of the Committee and Partnership.

 

3.   CEAG Recommendations

That the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee:

1.         Endorse the revised Memorandum of Agreement as outlined in Attachment B to this report.

2.         Recommend that the Canterbury Regional Council (ECan), Christchurch City Council, Waimakariri District Council, Selwyn District Council, Canterbury District Health Board and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu:

a.         Approve the revised Memorandum of Agreement as set out in Attachment B

b.         Delegate responsibility to the Chief Executives Advisory Group to make any minor non-material amendments to the agreement, and to execute the Agreement.

c.         Note that from the date the agreement is executed the committee's name will change from the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee to the Greater Christchurch Partnership Committee, and that the committee is working with Ngāi Tahu to develop a Māori component as part of its new name.

d.         Delegate to the Greater Christchurch Partnership Committee the authority to adopt a Māori component of its name.   

e.         Note that the Greater Christchurch Partnership Committee has delegated authority to confirm the final Communications Protocol referenced in the Memorandum of Agreement and incorporate it into the Agreement.

f.          Resolve under Schedule 7 Clause 30(7) of the Local Government Act 2002 that the Greater Christchurch Partnership Committee is not discharged following triennial general elections, in accordance with paragraph 4.4 of the Memorandum of Agreement.

 

 

4.   Context/Background

Background

4.1       At its meeting in September 2016 this Committee endorsed a paper including a series of recommendations for consideration by the reformed Committee following the local body elections.

4.2       Recommendation (i) was that “the Committee’s Memorandum of Agreement is reviewed early in the new triennium and adjusted as appropriate to reflect new circumstances”.

4.3       A Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) is a requirement for joint committees following enactment of the LGA2002 Amendment Act 2014.

4.4       The existing MoA for the Committee was endorsed by this Committee in July 2015 and remains in place as part of the enduring provisions of the Committee such that it is not disestablished at the point of local body elections.

4.5       The 2015 MoA is included as Attachment A to this report for reference.

CEAG advice

4.6       Despite the fact that the existing MoA remains in place, CEAG recommend that it be revised.

4.7       The reasons for this include:

i.      A revised MoA would better convey the renewed approach discussed by the Committee and reflect the new name of the Committee and Partnership.

ii.     It would ensure strong ownership by the Committee’s new membership and reflect organisational changes since 2015.

a.    the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority was disestablished and the Greater Christchurch Group of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has assumed responsibility for supporting greater Christchurch regeneration

b.    around half of the voting members of the Committee will have changed following recent elections

c.     Regenerate Christchurch is finalising a positon in relation to confirming its membership and/or relationship with the Committee

iii.    It would help outline the new operating environment and integrate the emerging themes of regeneration and resilience.

iv.   It would clarify minor technical and terminology points raised in relation to the current MoA.

4.8       The proposed revised MoA is included as Attachment B to this report.

4.9       This revised MoA addresses the changes and matters highlighted above and, for consistency and where appropriate, it adopts a similar structure and approach to the recent Agreement prepared for the Greater Christchurch Public Transport Joint Committee.

4.10    At its meeting on 3 February 2017 the Committee requested that its name be changed to the Greater Christchurch Partnership Committee, and this has been incorporated into the MoA. Work is underway with Ngāi Tahu to develop a Māori component as part of the Committee’s new name.

4.11    If endorsed by the Committee the revised MoA would be circulated to the voting member Partners (as identified in Clause 4.1 of the Agreement) to seek ratification at their individual partner governance meetings.

4.12    Non-voting member Partners would be asked to provide feedback on any suggested amendments and consider their respective authority and delegations to enable them to ratify the document.

4.13    While it is not anticipated any final decision-making on the content of the MoA rests with the regional council and territorial authorities, this being a joint committee established by the Partner councils under the LGA 2002.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

UDSIC Memorandum of Agreement 2015

35

b

Draft revised Memorandum of Agreement

44

 

 


Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee

07 April 2017

UDS Logo

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee

07 April 2017

UDS Logo

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee

07 April 2017

UDS Logo

 

 

9.        The Productivity Commission's 'Better Urban Planning' Report

Reference:

17/320682

Contact:

Milly Woods

mwoods@greaterchristchurch.org.nz

03 941 6555

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the Productivity Commission’s Better Urban Planning final report, which was released on 28 March 2017.

2.   Relationship to Partnership Objectives

2.1       This report relates to Priority Action A of the UDS Update:

A)   Understanding current and future land use and housing needs

Identify, research and collate information on land use, housing and business provision and development capacity

Ensure ongoing monitoring of the objectives, policies and settlement pattern as set out in Chapter 6 of the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement.

Take account of changes to national direction through legislation and regulatory documents.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee:

1.         Note the report.

 

 

4.   Background

4.1       The Productivity Commission released its final report in relation to the Better Urban Planning inquiry on 28 March 2017. The final report, and previous reports relating to the inquiry, can be found at http://www.productivity.govt.nz.

4.2       This Committee has previously endorsed submissions on both the Issues Paper and the Better Urban Planning draft report.

5.   Contents of the Report

5.1       The Commission has produced a ‘cut to the chase’ summary of its final report, which is provided as attachment A to this report. 

5.2       The Commission argues that the current planning system is slow to adapt to change, and is biased towards the status quo. The report focusses on problems the Commission has identified with the Resource Management Act and its implementation, including ‘ambiguous and broad language’ leading to overly restrictive rules, and a lack of recognition of urban issues.

5.3       The report makes a number of recommendations for a future planning system, including;

·        A single integrated planning and resource management statute, with separate objectives and principles for natural and built environments.

·        Mechanisms to overcome growth challenges, such as price-trigger mechanisms for development capacity, the use of Urban Development Authorities, and competitive urban land markets which encourage out-of-sequence community development.

·        Improvements in the ability of Councils to provide infrastructure, including user and congestion charges and taxation tools.

·        The requirement for Regional Spatial Strategies, with 30-50 year timeframes for high growth regions along with a suite of District Plans for the region, and Regional Policy Statements for the Natural Environmental. Notified plans for the region will be subject to a ‘one-step merits review’ by an Independent Hearings Panel.

·        The establishment of a National Māori Advisory Board on Planning, and a National Policy Statement which recognises and protects Māori interests in planning and the environment.

5.4       A brief presentation will accompany this report at the Committee meeting.

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Better Urban Planning - Cut to the Chase Summary February 2017

61

 

 


Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee

07 April 2017

UDS Logo

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee

07 April 2017

UDS Logo

 

 

10.    Urban Development and Regeneration update

Reference:

17/320604

Contact:

Milly Woods

mwoods@greaterchristchurch.org.nz

03 941 6555

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to provide the Committee with brief updates on the broad range of urban development and regeneration activities underway across the Greater Christchurch area.

1.2       The update collates contributions from partners and a range of other agencies and government departments.

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee:

1.         Note the report and receive the attached Urban Development and Regeneration update.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Urban Development and Regeneration update - March 2017

66

 

 


Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee

07 April 2017

UDS Logo

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator