Christchurch City Council

Supplementary Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Christchurch City Council will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Thursday 23 March 2017

Time:                                    9.30am

Venue:                                 Council Chambers, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner

Councillor Vicki Buck

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor Mike Davidson

Councillor David East

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor Jamie Gough

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Councillor Raf Manji

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Councillor Deon Swiggs

Councillor Sara Templeton

 

 

21 March 2017

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Dr Karleen Edwards

Chief Executive

Tel: 941 8554

 

Jo Daly

Council Secretary

941 8581

jo.daly@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

Note:  The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as Council policy unless and until adopted.  If you require further information relating to any reports, please contact the person named on the report.
Watch Council meetings live on the web:
http://councillive.ccc.govt.nz/live-stream

 


Council

23 March 2017

 

 


Council

23 March 2017

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

41.     Resolution to Include Supplementary Reports...................................................................... 4

STAFF REPORTS

42.     Draft Cranford Regeneration Plan: Approval for Community Engagement........................ 5  


Council

23 March 2017

 

 

41 Resolution to Include Supplementary Reports

1.       Background

1.1          Approval is sought to submit the following report to the Council meeting on 23 March 2017:

42.   Draft Cranford Regeneration Plan: Approval for Community Engagement

1.2          The reason, in terms of section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, why the report was not included on the main agenda is that it was not available at the time the agenda was prepared.

1.3          It is appropriate that the Council receive the report at the current meeting.

2.       Recommendation

2.1          That the report be received and considered at the Council meeting on 23 March 2017.

42.   Draft Cranford Regeneration Plan: Approval for Community Engagement

 

 


Council

23 March 2017

 

 

42.    Draft Cranford Regeneration Plan: Approval for Community Engagement

Reference:

17/111249

Contact:

Ivan Thomson

ivan.thomson@ccc.govt.nz

941 8813

 

 

1.    Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval to advise Regenerate Christchurch that the draft Cranford Regeneration Plan has been developed so they can publicly notify it for written comment.

Origin of Report

1.2       Section 34 the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act (the Act) provides that when the Council (‘Proponent’) has developed the draft Cranford Regeneration Plan, Regenerate Christchurch must publish a notice that invites written comments and ‘advise of any other opportunity for public engagement’.  It is the Council’s responsibility as Proponent to undertake that engagement, assess the feedback, make any changes to the draft Plan, then deliver it again to Regenerate Christchurch so that Regenerate Christchurch can then decide what to recommend to the Minister.

2.    Significance

2.1       The decision in this report – being, whether to give a draft Plan to Regenerate Christchurch for notification, written comments and public engagement – is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. It is of low significance because the Council is obliged under the Act to draft a Regeneration Plan in accordance with the Outline that has been approved by the Minister and to deliver it to Regenerate Christchurch for notification. The Council decision following the notification, written comments and engagement will be of higher significance.

 

3.    Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Approves providing the draft Cranford Regeneration Plan to Regenerate Christchurch for public notification for written comment.

2.         Delegate’s authority to the Chief Executive Officer to make changes to draft Cranford Regeneration Plan prior to it being provided to Regenerate Christchurch. 

 

 

4.    Key Points

4.1       The Council, as ‘Proponent’, has developed a proposal to enable residential development on land between the Cranford Basin storm water management area, and the urban area defined by the Projected Infrastructure Boundary on Map A of the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement (CRPS).

4.2       The ‘Draft Cranford Regeneration Plan’ is attached as Attachment A.  The effect of the Proposal would be to put the entire Cranford rural area inside of the Projected Infrastructure Boundary (‘urban limit’) and rezone approximately 38 hectares of land around the edge of the Cranford Basin from Rural Urban Fringe Zone to Residential in the District Plan. Some of the rural zoned land around the storm water basin (mainly in the Winters Road area) will be included within the urban limits but retain the current Rural Urban Fringe Zone until further investigations are undertaken. Both the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement and the District Plan will need to be changed to enable the residential development to proceed.

4.3       Clause 4(1) of the Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch Replacement District Plan) Order 2014, prevents the Council from using the Resource Management Act (RMA) to change the District Plan until after 30 June 2021. At the present time the Regeneration Act is the only legislative process available to the Council to change the District Plan, although the Resource Management Act can still be used to change the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement.   In terms of keeping the process simple and integrated, it is desirable to use the Regeneration Act to change both documents at once.

4.4       The process of preparing the draft regeneration plan began in December 2016 with the Minister approving the Outline, thereby requiring the Council to prepare a regeneration plan in accordance with that approved Outline. A draft Regeneration Plan for the Cranford area has been prepared by Council, as the Proponent, and in accordance with Section 29 of the Act, Council has sought the views of the following the Parties: Regenerate Christchurch, Ötäkaro Limited, Environment Canterbury, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and Te Rünanga o Ngai Tahu.  Section 29 does not require the Proponent to make all the changes sought by the Section 29 Parties, but go through a process of considering those issues and making the changes that Council, as the Proponent, consider are appropriate.  Notwithstanding this, staff have taken on board the majority of issues raised. 

4.5       Discussions with the Parties to date have centred around four substantive areas:

·        whether the proposal constitutes ‘regeneration’ as defined in the Act;

·        potential effects on Ngai Tahu values, including those associated with springs, and discharges into Horseshoe Lake;

·        whether the Plan gives effect to the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement particularly around natural hazards and contaminated land; and

·        implications the proposal might have on the East Frame housing development. 

4.6       There are however a broad range of other less substantive issues raised by the Parties, including whether specific pieces of land should be rezoned because of geotechnical or flooding constraints. Overall the feedback from the parties has been very helpful and constructive. The Council is required to prepare a concise statement recording the views of the Parties and make this statement publicly available at the start of the formal consultation period.  Copies of the actual feedback are attached at Attachment B.  The concise statement will be attached to the draft Plan when it is notified.

4.7       The two principle matters that remain unresolved are Te Rünanga o Ngäi Tahu’s (on behalf of Te Rünanga o Tüähuriri) opposition to stormwater discharging into Horseshoe Lake (a culturally significant waterbody), and Ötäkaro  Limited’s concerns regarding the potential impact of development around Cranford on the East Frame proposal.

4.8       Regarding the stormwater discharge issue, while some stormwater will discharge into the Styx River it is impractical to avoid using Horseshoe Lake (via the Upper Dudley Creek Diversion). Horseshoe Lake currently receives stormwater from a wider catchment than just the Cranford Basin, and resolving this issue will require long term planning.  Assurances have been given by Council officers that stormwater emanating from the proposed Cranford regeneration areas will be of a higher quality than current discharges because of first flush treatment provided by the developers, and the ‘polishing’ provided by the Cranford stormwater basin.

4.9       Council officers have had discussions both directly with the Rünanga, and their representative through Mahaanui Kurataiao, however no resolution has been found. The Council officers’ view is that the issue is unlikely to be resolved through this Regeneration Plan, and is a matter for the Ötäkaro/ Avon River Corridor Management Plan, Long Term Plan or both.    Notwithstanding this, if the draft Plan is approved for public comment, Council officers will continue to engage with Te Rünanga on this matter.

4.10    Regarding the matter of the East Frame, Ötäkaro Limited are concerned that enabling additional residential development around Cranford may detract from development of the East Frame by diverting demand to Cranford.  Council staff do not consider this will occur.  A significant amount of land that was ‘up-zoned’ around Key Activity Centres (KAC’s), such as Papanui/Northlands, during the District Plan process to enable intensification and a consolidated urban form, in accordance with the direction of the higher order documents, such as the Urban Development Strategy, the Land Use Recovery Plan and the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement (CRPS).  If approved, the Cranford Plan would be a very small proportion of the overall potential yield that was ‘up-zoned’ around the Key Activity Centres through the District Plan process.  The Crowns evidence as part of the District Plan Review was supportive of intensification around Key Activity Centres as part of the District Plan Review process.  The proposed Cranford development will help reinforce the Papanui/Northlands Key Activity Centres, and in staff’s opinion will support the central city by providing additional land for residential development, where people can commute through a range of travel options to the central city for employment, recreation and hospitality opportunities.  Notwithstanding this, the market for central city living, is different to the likely market for Cranford so any ‘diversion’ of demand will likely be negligible. 

4.11    Over the past nine months Council officers have had meetings with, or otherwise advised, landowners whose land is proposed to be rezoned as part of preparing the Outline, and have also met, or spoken with, those rural land owners whose land is proposed to remain rural at the present time.  Meetings have been held with representatives from schools in the area and information shared through the Papanui News, which is distributed bimonthly to 4,500 Papanui residents and is a partnership of local community organisations and Council staff.  A briefing was provided to the Papanui – Innes Community Board on 15 February 2017.  As part of the formal engagement process it is also proposed to hold two drop in sessions for the community during the consultation period (Wednesday 5 April and Wednesday 12 April). 

4.12    If approved by Council, Regenerate Christchurch is required to publish a public notice that advises where the draft plan can be inspected and to invite written comment.  This will occur just prior to the formal consultation process.

4.13    Following the public engagement the next step is to consider the feedback, make any changes as appropriate and submit the Plan to Regenerate Christchurch, along with a statement summarising the comments. Regenerate Christchurch, after making any amendments, must then submit the Plan to the Minister.

4.14    There are two further matters that the Council should be aware of.  Firstly, unlike standard Resource Management Act processes, the Act does not provide for a process through which submitters can have their case heard in front of a hearings panel.  While officers are confident that the technical work done for this project is robust and objective, this may not be of comfort to those who are opposed to the proposal, or who have concerns about it. 

4.15    Secondly, there are no opportunities for appeals to the Environment Court on matters of merit – only to the High Court on legal matters. Such appeals, if they eventuate, are likely to centre on whether the use of the expedited process under the Act can be justified.  Officers consider that, in the absence of the ability to use the Resource Management Act, it can be justified but there is a risk of landowners elsewhere in the city seeking that the Council or Regenerate Christchurch use the Act to have their land brought into the Projected Infrastructure Boundary and their land zoned for urban purposes. However, officers consider that any such arguments can be refuted because of the unique characteristics of the land in the Cranford area as a non-urban “pocket” in the City.

4.16    A supporting document and planning assessment has been prepared, and is available at 17/207858 and on the Council website.

 

5.    Context/Background

Alignment with Urban Development Strategy

5.1       The Plan area constitutes an anomaly in the overall urban form of Christchurch, reflecting part of the area’s susceptibility to flooding, past infrastructure constraints and unknown or challenging geotechnical conditions. Consequently the area has not been a priority for servicing.  For all these reasons the area has been excluded from being considered for urban development up until now. With the construction of the storm water basin and Northern Arterial now underway, wastewater disposal provided for, and  detailed geotechnical work completed over part of the Plan area, the land not required for designated works can now be considered for development.

5.2       Chapter 6 of the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement contains objectives and policies which, inter alia, are directed towards preventing the outward spread of Christchurch in favour of promoting urban consolidation through infill and intensification. One of the instruments used to achieve the objective is the Projected Infrastructure Boundary as identified on Map A of the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement.

5.3       The Plan area is not located within the Projected Infrastructure Boundary or identified as an existing urban area.  To facilitate urban activities in the Cranford Basin an amendment to the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement is required to include this area inside the existing urban limit on Map A, and the Rural Urban Fringe zone changed to Residential in the District Plan.  Council staff consider that there is no rural part of Christchurch which, if developed, is so compatible with the objectives and policies for urban growth in the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement due to the area being:

·        close to a Key Activity Centre;

·        close to a range of transport options;

·        of sufficient size that good urban design outcomes can be achieved; and

·        being completely encircled by existing or planned urban development.

 

Council’s obligations in preparing the Regeneration Plan

 

5.4       Section 33 of the Act requires that, once the Minister approves the Outline (which was gazetted on 12 January 2017 Gazette Notice Number gs87) the Council must prepare a draft Plan in accordance with the Outline and in doing this, seek the views of each party specified in Section 29(1) of the Act: Regenerate Christchurch, Ötäkaro Limited, Environment Canterbury, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and Te Rünanga o Ngai Tahu.  Once the draft Plan is completed Regenerate Christchurch must publish a Notice that invites written comments and provide other opportunities for public engagement. When Regenerate Christchurch publishes the notice the Council must ensure that a concise statement recording the views of the Parties is also publicly available.

 

5.5       The Council must consider the comments, make any amendments it thinks appropriate and then provide the draft Plan to Regenerate Christchurch for review. There will be a Council decision point prior to giving an amended Plan to Regenerate Christchurch.  Regenerate Christchurch may amend the draft Plan (in consultation with the Section 29 parties) and then make a recommendation to the Minister on whether or not the Plan should be approved. Since the Outline was approved, Council staff have had on-going discussions with the Parties with the view of trying to reach common ground prior to the formal consultation process. These discussions have resolved several substantive issues prior to notifying the draft Plan for comment.

Regeneration

5.6       Staff consider the proposal meets the Act’s definition of regeneration.  The long term vision and goals for the Cranford area are about restoration and enhancement.  Redundant agricultural land is being restored to its former function as a natural wetland.  The heavily modified drainage system is proposed to be sequentially replaced and enhanced through naturalisation of waterways that will benefit ecosystems and the surrounding community. These works will be undertaken by the Council.                  

5.7       The proposed residential development is an integral part of this vision.  It will improve social and economic wellbeing by bringing to the market a diverse range of housing types of various price levels where and when it is needed, assist in meeting the Greater Christchurch intensification targets and facilitate the provision of community infrastructure such as cycle and pedestrian links to amenities such as schools, and access to public open space. For these reasons, the Cranford proposal meets the definition of regeneration.

Challenges and Opportunities that are addressed by the draft Plan

5.8       The draft District Plan changes address the challenges with development in this area. Technical investigations have raised concerns about potential effects, particularly the geotechnical reports and the traffic assessment. The proposed District Plan changes will require any development to be planned comprehensively, particularly in dealing with transport and geotechnical issues.  There will not only be a need for an Outline Development Plan (ODP), but it will be essential for some form of hydrogeological / storm water management plan to be in place before subdivision consent is granted.  The costs of this should be borne by the developer as part of applying for consent. It is desirable to have a limit on the number of households in the Grassmere Street area in view of the advice on wastewater and water supply, reduce the risk of adverse effects on hydrogeology, and to limit adverse effects on the local road network.  The overall conclusion from the technical reports is that residential development can be serviced with the necessary services and potential adverse remedied, mitigated or avoided.

5.9       With thoughtful development and innovative design, some of the constraints, particularly the hydrogeology (e.g. springs) can be used as opportunities to create an attractive residential development incorporating natural settings and ecological corridors. The entire area lends itself to a vision based around water management area, incorporating innovative and low impact residential development in conjunction with the enhancement of natural water features, open space networks and walking/cycling connections, all of which respond to the recovery and regeneration of Papanui/St Albans and Greater Christchurch.

5.10    Because subdivision and building costs are likely to be higher than most other parts of Christchurch, particularly between Grassmere and Cranford Street, house prices will likely be towards the upper end of the market, with limited opportunity for housing accessible to first home buyers. However the area proposed to be rezoned off Croziers Road is likely to be less geotechnically challenging and some of the houses in that area may be more affordable.

5.11    Te Rünanga o Ngäi Tahu, in support of the Cultural Impact Assessment, sought to avoid the mixing of natural spring water and stormwater discharge. There are provisions in the subdivision rules which require developers to keep these two waters separate and the Rünanga appear to be satisfied with these provisions, and other provisions that seek to protect ecology and other cultural values. However, as mentioned elsewhere in the report the Council is unable to meet their request that stormwater from the proposed development not be discharged into Horseshoe Lake.

6.    Risks

6.1       There are three main potential risks that would be enabled by the Regeneration Plan: the risk posed by geotechnical conditions if proper care is not taken during the site development and building stage; risks surrounding costs, timing and feasibility of development; and “precedent” type risks associated with the use of the Act.

Geotechnical risks

 

Investigations have highlighted the challenging nature of this land and the likelihood of ongoing subsidence.  Piecemeal subdivision is likely to result in changes in groundwater conditions and the emergence of new springs that are likely to cause adverse effects for third parties. The draft Plan proposes to manage these risks through a comprehensive approach to storm water management, springs protection and earthworks and by District Plan provisions that facilitate and require integrated development.

 

Costs, feasibility and timing

 

The challenging ground conditions and fragmented land ownership are impediments that need to be overcome if a resilient and integrated development is to be created. Development costs, and therefore housing costs are likely to be at the higher end of the housing market.  The high upfront costs associated with the need for an integrated storm water and springs management system may require Council support through a cost share scheme.

 

Precedent

 

This risk relates to the potential for other landowners around the City to submit that the development opportunities facilitated by the draft Regeneration Plan should also apply to their land. A considerable number of submissions were received on the Replacement District Plan including from landowners from the Cranford Area requesting that rural land be rezoned residential.  The Independent Hearing Panel decided against accepting these submissions principally on the basis that the land was outside of the Projected Infrastructure Boundary and the rezoning for urban residential would not be giving effect to the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement.  None of the submissions by landowners on the urban edge seeking to have their land rezoned offer the opportunities for the environmental enhancement, and regeneration offered by the proposed Cranford rezoning. The key factors which sets it apart from other areas that were submitted on are:

 

·        Its strategic location relation to a Key Activity Centre, public transport, strategic road network and social infrastructure.

·        It being an undeveloped pocket surrounded by proposed or existing urban development, held back from development historically primarily due to the stormwater management basin and the transport developments.

·        It’s potential to generate a range of housing types in a comprehensive and integrated manner using sustainable development practices.

·        The environmental and community ties between the proposed residential area and construction of the multi-purpose Cranford Basin Storm water facility.

 

Officers are not aware of any other comparable residential development opportunity with this degree of policy alignment.

 

7.    Conclusions

7.1       The Regeneration Plan provides a unique opportunity to comprehensively develop a mixed housing area close to a Key Activity Centre and other amenities. There has been a long standing interest in the land but site specific constraints and subsequent exclusion from the urban area in the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement has until now prevented development being initiated.

7.2       The feedback from the Parties has raised a considerable number of matters to consider and the matters raised have in the majority of instances, been accepted through amendments to the Draft Plan.  If approved for notification, Council staff will continue to work with Te Rünanga o Ngai Tahu and Otakaro Limited regarding their concerns. 

7.3       The public acquisition and long term development of the Cranford Basin storm water facility, together with the proposed residential zoning, presents an opportunity to convert a former market gardening area into a multi-purpose urban nature park that is well integrated into its surrounding housing neighbourhood.  Initiating the residential planning process now will provide the certainty needed for this integration to occur in the medium to long term, and contribute to the regeneration of older parts of the Papanui area.

7.4       The usual approach to rezoning land is through the RMA. However, this avenue is not available to the Council at the present time and the Regeneration Act is the only mechanism available to change the District Plan. The Cranford Regeneration Plan sets out how that Act can be used to amend key RMA documents, through a public process, so that the proposed residential development can proceed.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A - Draft Cranford Regeneration Plan

12

b

Attachment B - Feedback from the Section 29(1) parties

49

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

Compliance with Statutory Decision-making Requirements (ss 76 - 81 Local Government Act 2002).

(a) This report contains:

(i)  sufficient information about all reasonably practicable options identified and assessed in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

(ii) adequate consideration of the views and preferences of affected and interested persons bearing in mind any proposed or previous community engagement.

(b) The information reflects the level of significance of the matters covered by the report, as determined in accordance with the Council's significance and engagement policy.

 

Signatories

Authors

Ann Campbell - Senior Engagement Advisor

Ivan Thomson - Team Leader City Planning

Brent Pizzey - Senior Solicitor

Approved By

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

Richard Osborne - Head of Planning and Strategic Transport

  


Council

23 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

23 March 2017

 

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


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

23 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 March 2017

 

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


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

23 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator