Regulatory Performance Committee

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Regulatory Performance Committee will be held on:

 

Date:                                    Wednesday 6 March 2019

Time:                                   2pm

Venue:                                 Committee Room 1, Level 2, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Membership

Acting Chairman

Acting Deputy Chairman

Members

Councillor Jamie Gough

Councillor Sara Templeton

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor David East

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor Tim Scandrett

 

 

28 February 2019

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Leonie Rae

General Manager Consenting & Compliance

 

Liz Ryley

Committee Advisor

941 8153

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

 


Regulatory Performance Committee

06 March 2019

 


Regulatory Performance Committee - Terms of Reference

 

 

Acting Chair

Councillor Gough

Membership

Councillor Templeton (Acting Deputy Chair), Councillor Chen, Councillor Galloway, Councillor Scandrett, Councillor East

Quorum

Half of the members if the number of members (including vacancies) is even, or a majority of members if the number of members (including vacancies) is odd.

Meeting Cycle

Monthly

Reports To

Council

 

 

Responsibilities

The focus of the Regulatory Performance Committee is Council’s regulatory and compliance functions. The Committee seeks to foster:

·         active citizenship, community participation and community partnerships

·         innovation and creativity

·         relationship with key partner organisations and agencies

·         engagement with community boards on bylaw development and review

 

 

The Regulatory Performance Committee considers and reports to Council on issues and activites relating to:

·         Council’s regulatory and compliance functions

·         Council’s regulatory and compliance functions under:

-       Resource Management Act 1991 and related legislation

-       Building Act 2004 and the New Zealand Building Code

-       Dog Control Act 1996

-       Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012

-       Local Government Act 1974 and Local Government Act 2002

-       Historic Places Act 1980

-       District Plan

-       Bylaws

-       Other regulatory matters

·         District planning

·         Approval and monitoring of Council’s list of hearings commissioners under the Resource Management Act 1991.

·         relationship with key partner organisations and agencies

·         engagement with community boards on bylaw development and review

 

 


Regulatory Performance Committee

06 March 2019

 

Part A           Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B           Reports for Information

Part C           Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

C          1.        Apologies................................................................................................. 5

B         2.        Declarations of Interest.............................................................................. 5

C          3.        Confirmation of Previous Minutes................................................................. 5

B         4.        Public Forum............................................................................................ 5

B         5.        Deputations by Appointment....................................................................... 5

B         6.        Presentation of Petitions............................................................................ 5

Staff Reports

C          7.        Proposed Plan Change 1 Woolston Risk Management Area............................... 9

B         8.        Chairperson's Report -  Canterbury Earthquake (Resource Management Act Permitted Activities) Order 2011.............................................................................. 269

B         9.        Resource Consents Monthly Report - January 2019....................................... 275

b         10.      Building Consenting Unit Update.............................................................. 289   

 

 


Regulatory Performance Committee

06 March 2019

 

 

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.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

That the minutes of the Regulatory Performance Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 30 January 2019  be confirmed (refer page 6).

4.   Public Forum

A period of up to 30 minutes may be available for people to speak for up to five minutes on any issue that is not the subject of a separate hearings process.

5.   Deputations by Appointment

There were no deputations by appointment at the time the agenda was prepared.

6.   Petitions

There were no petitions received at the time the agenda was prepared.


Regulatory Performance Committee

06 March 2019

 

 

 

Regulatory Performance Committee

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 30 January 2019

Time:                                    2.01pm

Venue:                                 Committee Room 1, Level 2, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Present

Acting Chairman

Acting Deputy Chairman

Members

Councillor Jamie Gough

Councillor Sara Templeton

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor David East

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor Tim Scandrett

 

 

29 January 2019

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Leonie Rae

General Manager Consenting & Compliance

 

Liz Ryley

Committee Advisor

941 8153

liz.ryley@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

To view copies of Agendas and Minutes, visit:
www.ccc.govt.nz/Council/meetingminutes/agendas/index

 


Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

·                                        

 

 

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies

 

No apologies were recorded.

 

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

Councillor Gough declared an interest in Item 7, as Alternate Director of 92 Hereford Street.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Committee Resolved RPCM/2019/00001

That the minutes of the Regulatory Performance Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 12 December 2018 be confirmed.

Councillor Templeton/Councillor Chen                                                                                                              Carried

 

4.   Public Forum

Part B

There were no public forum presentations.

5.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

There were no deputations by appointment.

6.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.


 

 

7.   Building Consenting Unit Update

 

Committee Resolved RPCM/2019/00002

Part C

That the Regulatory Performance Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the Building Consenting Unit Update report.

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Templeton                                                                                                     Carried

 

 

8.   Regulatory Performance Committee - Regulatory Compliance Unit Status Report - 30 January 2019

 

Committee Resolved RPCM/2019/00003

Part C

That the Regulatory Performance Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the Regulatory Compliance Unit Status report.

Councillor Chen/Councillor East                                                                                                                            Carried

 

 

9.   Resource Consents Monthly Report - January 2019

 

Committee Resolved RPCM/2019/00004

Part C

       That Regulatory Performance Committee:

 

1.         Receive the information in the Resource Consents Monthly Report – December 2018.

Councillor Galloway/Councillor Gough                                                                                                               Carried

 

 

   

Meeting concluded at 2.36pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2019

Councillor Jamie Gough

ACTING Chairman

 


Regulatory Performance Committee

06 March 2019

 

 

7.        Proposed Plan Change 1 Woolston Risk Management Area

Reference:

18/1365227

Presenter(s):

Adele Radburnd, Acting Team Leader - City Planning
Marie Pollisco, Policy Planner

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       There is a rule in the Christchurch District Plan that requires resource consent for sensitive activities to establish themselves in the Risk Management Area in Woolston.  This rule expires on 31 March 2019.  This creates a planning risk.  Remedying this risk will take some time to work through the required processes to retain the rule and make any other necessary changes.  To avoid this risk, a plan change is needed and an application to the Environment Court for the rule and its associated overlay to have immediate legal effect when the (Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch Replacement District Plan) Order 2014) (OiC) is revoked on 18 March 2019.

 

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided following Regulatory Performance Committee resolution number RPCM/2018/00055 and Council resolution number CNCL/2018/00301, which states that the Council:

1.       Note the report on the Proposed Plan Change 1 Woolston Risk Management Area as being the first proposed plan change under the Council’s operative District Plan (due to the expiry of Rule 4.1.4.1.5 NC2 on 31 March 2019).

2.         Note that staff will progress preparation for the proposed plan change, and seek Council agreement to notify the plan change immediately once the Order in Council is revoked.”

2.   Significance

2.1       The decision in this report is of medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the limited number of properties affected within the proposed Woolston Risk Management Area. Any disruption however to the petroleum and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) supply chains would have a major impact on the availability of fuel supplies across the city and beyond, and therefore on people’s ability to meet their social and economic needs. The level of impact on those people affected is expected to be of low probability but potentially high impact.

2.1.2   The community engagement and consultation outlined in this report reflect the assessment.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Regulatory Performance Committee recommend that Council:

1.         Publicly notify Proposed Plan Change 1 Woolston Risk Management Area pursuant to Clause 5, Schedule 1 Resource Management Act 1991, subsequent to the Order in Council (Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch Replacement District Plan) Order 2014) being revoked on 18 March 2019.

2.         Delegate to the Chief Executive authority to apply to the Environment Court, under section 86D(2) Resource Management Act 1991, for the proposed change to Rule 4.1.4.1.5 NC2 and its associated updated Woolston Risk Management overlay shown in Planning Map 47A to have immediate legal effect from either the date of public notification or the date of any order made by the Court. This application should be lodged immediately following revocation of the Order in Council on 18 March 2019 and before public notification.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028):

4.1.1   Activity: Strategic Planning and Policy

·     Level of Service: 9.5.1.1 Guidance on where and how the city grows through the District Plan - Ensure Christchurch District Plan   is operative.

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Approve Proposed Plan Change 1 Woolston Risk Management Area for public notification with application to the Environment Court (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Approve Proposed Plan Change 1 Woolston Risk Management Area for public notification without application to the Environment Court

·     Option 3 - Do nothing and let the sunset clause expire on 31 March 2019.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Resolving an identified problem in an effective and efficient manner.

·     Improving the accuracy of the District Plan by more accurately identifying the geographic extent of risk, thereby improving Plan efficiency and effectiveness. The removal of the sunset clause likewise improves certainty of the plan provisions.

·     Directing sensitive activities to locations where they will not be exposed to unacceptable risks and thereby achieving the intended outcomes for industrial zones.

·     Continuing to enable assessment of proposals for the establishment of sensitive activities in proximity to bulk fuel terminals through a resource consent process.

·     Maintaining long-term security for strategic infrastructure and the associated security of reliable fuel supplies including the ability of the existing strategic infrastructure to expand to meet demand as required.

·     Removing the costs for developers of discretionary and non-complying activities near the terminals to prepare individual full Quantitative Risk Assessments (QRAs).

·     Fostering investment certainty in the ongoing operation and upgrading of strategic infrastructure, and likewise providing certainty for other landowners contemplating sensitive activities regarding locations where such activities would not be exposed to an unacceptable level of risk.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Council will be absorbing processing costs, including lodgement fees for the application to the Environment Court.

·     There is no guarantee the application will be granted.

4.4       On 19 December 2018, Council noted the report of the Regulatory Performance Committee which provided the background, process, timing and issues surrounding the Proposed Plan Change 1 Woolston Risk Management Area. The full report can be viewed here (refer to Agenda Item No. 5).

4.5       Briefly, the plan change is in relation to the risk management areas, or the overlays, around two bulk fuel storage terminals in Woolston.  These risk management areas are mapped in the District Plan along with policy direction and a non-complying rule (Rule 4.1.4.1.5 NC2) as a tool to manage reverse sensitivity effects and to avoid sensitive and some other activities locating in an area where they would be exposed to unacceptable risk. The rule expires on 31 March 2019 (the “sunset clause”) and staff consider it appropriate to retain the rule (i.e. delete the sunset clause) now that Mobil and Liquigas have completed the necessary risk assessments to inform a revised Risk Management Area boundary.

4.6       A full set of changes proposed within the Plan Change is set out in Attachments A, B and C, and the accompanying Section 32 Evaluation Report is found in Attachments D, E, F, G, H, I and J. In summary Plan Change 1 proposes the following changes to the District Plan:

·    Amendments to the geographic extent of the existing Risk Management Areas to create the new Woolston Risk Management Area by combining the risk contours for sensitive activities of the QRAs for both sites, shown as a change to Planning Map 47A. (Refer to Attachment K to view the existing and proposed overlays.)

·    Renaming “Risk Management Areas” to “Woolston Risk Management Area”, and removing the “sunset clause” from Chapter 4.1 Hazardous Substances, Risk Management Area policy and rule, and the planning map legend.

·    Updating the policy and advice note in Chapter 16 Industrial relating to the LPG and oil depots located in Chapmans Road, Woolston, which are those depots associated with the Woolston Risk Management Area.

·    In Chapter 16 Industrial, changing the status of preschool activities in the part of the Woolston Risk Management Area which overlays the Industrial General Zone, from permitted to non-complying.

4.7       With the rule’s expiry date fast approaching, staff consider that the most effective and efficient way to avoid the gap in the District Plan, or to shorten the length of this gap if unavoidable, is to make an application to the Environment Court under s86D(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991 for the proposed changes to Rule 4.1.4.1.5 and its associated updated overlay shown in Planning Map 47A to have immediate legal effect, rather than for it to have legal effect after submissions, a hearing and commissioners decision. The proposed text amendments to the rule are as follows:

4.1.4.1.5 Non-complying activities

Activity

NC2

a.    Any sensitive activity located within a the Woolston Risk Management Area. This rule shall cease to have effect by 31 March 2019.

Advice note:

1.    The Woolston Risk Management Areas are is shown on Planning Map 47A. The geographic extent of these areas may be subject to a future plan change to have effect by 31st March 2019 and any such plan change would need to be based on the findings of a Quantitative Risk Assessment.

 

Application to the Environment Court

4.8       Section 86D of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the ‘RMA’) is available to be used for this plan change. This process involves making an application to the Environment Court for a rule to have immediate legal effect from a date other than the date on which the decision on submissions relating to the rule is made and publicly notified. However, this process requires the OiC (Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch District Plan) Order 2014) to be revoked and the proposed plan change approved by Council for public notification. While limited notification of the plan change would normally be an option for this plan change under the RMA Schedule 1 process, any plan change that utilises Section 86D has to be publicly notified.

4.9       The application will seek an Environment Court order for Rule 4.1.4.1.5 NC2 and its associated updated Woolston Risk Management Area overlay shown in Planning Map 47A to have immediate legal effect from either the date of public notification or the date of any order made by the Court. The proposed rule and the updated overlay still need to be determined through the standard RMA process of submissions and hearings for a plan change. In the meantime, consent would be required for any breach of that rule. The proposed rule with legal effect will be weighted accordingly alongside the operative rule for any consent applications in breach of that rule.

4.10    Staff initially considered making a section 86D application in relation to the non-complying rule without the associated updated Woolston Risk Management Area overlay. However, legal advice suggested that the updated underlay would need to accompany the rule. It would be illogical for the proposed rule to take on immediate legal effect alongside the out‑of‑date operative Risk Management Areas. The order, in this case, would not reflect the updated QRA. It would also not give effect to Policy 4.1.2.2.2 wherein sensitive activities locating within the Risk Management Areas where they could be exposed to unacceptable risk and/or constrain the development, upgrading or maintenance of bulk fuel and gas terminals are avoided. This may also confuse the Court as to why the Council is seeking the order if it is not seeking that the order reflect the results of the updated QRA.

4.11    In respect of fairness to the 54 properties newly affected by the updated Woolston Risk Management Area overlay, the fact that both the proposed non-complying rule and the updated overlay remain proposed and subject to a Schedule 1 RMA process should alleviate any concerns. There will be opportunities for persons to make submissions opposing both aspects, or seeking to have their properties removed from the overlay, which will be determined in accordance with the Schedule 1 hearing process.

4.12    Staff do not hold delegation under the Council’s Delegation Register (Sept 18) to make an application to the Environment Court under s86D of the RMA and therefore a delegation is being sought to make the application. This will be prepared and submitted by Council’s legal team.

The OiC

4.13    The government announced on 19 February 2019 that the revocation of the OiC will take effect from 18 March 2019. From this date, Christchurch City Council can revert to normal planning processes to manage and make changes to the Christchurch District Plan.

Pre-notification Consultation

4.14    Pre-notification consultation was conducted from mid-January 2019 to mid-February 2019. During this period, letters were sent to owners and owner-occupiers of 248 properties considered to be directly affected and inviting them to provide feedback on the draft plan change.

4.15    Three public information drop-in sessions were held with nine owners representing twelve properties attending. One owner expressed concern that his development rights were being limited by the extension of the risk management overlay over his property. All other property owners did not have any concerns with the plan change proposal. All agreed that sensitive activities should be avoided in the area.

4.16    Queries received via email were mainly clarification requests with respect to the boundary of the overlay in relation to properties. One specific query was received from the media (after seeing the plan change info at the Council Have Your Say webpage) about the process involved in revoking the OiC.

4.17    Three completed feedback forms were received via post: (1) One landowner noted no concerns as long as there are no further or additional restrictions placed on their current business use under the current plan; (2) One landowner would be very pleased to see this change take effect; and (3) the other landowner sought flexibility to operate offices in the Industrial Heavy zone, within the overlay.

4.18    The rūnanga conveyed, through Mahaanui Kurataiao Limited (MKT), that they do not have any concerns about the proposed plan change.

4.19    A comment of substance came from Liquigas Limited (Liquigas) and the Oil Companies (Mobil Oil, BP Oil, and Z Energy). They support the draft plan change except for the proposed change to Policy 16.2.1.4 - Activities in industrial zones. Suggested amendments were made, which were considered and accepted in part by Council staff.

4.20    No further comments/feedback were received on the draft plan change.

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       On 19 December 2018, Council noted the report of the Regulatory and Performance Committee which provided the background, process, timing and issues surrounding the Proposed Plan Change 1 Woolston Risk Management Area. The full report can be viewed here (refer to Agenda Item No. 5).

Application to the Environment Court

5.2       Council staff presented in its previous report to Council detailed descriptions of different procedural options considered.

5.3       It was considered that the approach of undertaking a standard plan change provides for the greatest assurance that parties affected by the changes have the optimal opportunity for engagement in the process. At the same time, the value of protecting strategic infrastructure and preventing or minimising the lacuna is recognised as vital, hence the recommendation that relevant elements of the plan change related to the sunset clause is expedited through an application to the Environment Court.

Pre-notification Consultation

5.4       A total number of nine property owners representing twelve sites attended the scheduled public information drop-in sessions, broken down as follows into different groups:

·   new properties inside the proposed overlay – 5

·   properties inside the existing and proposed overlay – 7

·   properties no longer inside the existing overlay and outside the proposed overlay – 0

5.5       A comment of substance came from Liquigas and the Oil Companies. They support the draft plan change except for the change initially proposed to Policy 16.2.1.4 - Activities in industrial zones as explained below.

5.5.1   The informal consultative draft plan change proposed to delete the part of the policy that required discretionary and non-complying activities to prepare and submit a QRA with their resource consent application in order to demonstrate that their proposal meets the appropriate risk acceptability criteria for the type of land use.  Council initially considered that this policy requirement was no longer required or necessary because QRAs had since been undertaken by Liquigas and the Oil Companies and provisions in Chapter 4 of the District Plan (Hazardous Substances) now manage the location of sensitive activities within the WRMA.

5.5.2   Liquigas and the Oil Companies conveyed their view that it remains appropriate for Council to consider the potential of discretionary and non-complying activities seeking consent to establish within the WRMA.  This is to enable an assessment of the extent to which these activities were likely to generate reverse sensitivity effects on the bulk fuel terminals and to consider the exposure of these activities to unacceptable risk.  These potential effects may be relevant to all activities, not just those defined as sensitive in the District Plan[1]. Council staff now agree that it is appropriate to retain this policy requirement but that it is also appropriate to include reference to the existing QRAs to provide additional clarity to plan users via an advice note that:

·     The QRAs prepared by the LPG and oil depot companies for the Woolston Risk Management Area will be made freely available to the public to inform the policy requirement; and

·     The relevant discretionary and non-complying activities are only those the subject of Rule 16.4.1.4 D1, Rule 16.5.1.4, and Rule 16.5.1.5 NC1.

5.6       No further comments/feedback were received on the draft plan change.

6.   Option 1 – Approve Proposed Plan Change 1 for public notification with application to the Environment Court (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Should Council select this option, the plan change will be processed under Schedule 1 of the RMA and an application under s86D(2) will be made to the Environment Court (as soon as the OiC is revoked on 18 March 2019) for the change in Rule 4.1.4.1.5 NC2 and its associated updated Woolston Risk Management Area overlay to have immediate legal effect from either the date of public notification or the date of any order made by the Court.

6.2       The effect of such an application being granted is that Rule 4.1.4.1.5 NC2 and the updated overlay will have ‘legal effect’ from the date of the Court’s decision, rather than after the Council’s decision on submissions (as in the normal course of events for a Schedule 1 plan change). Consent will be required for any breach of this rule.

6.3       The Council’s legal team has provided the following information and relevant considerations with this option:

6.3.1   This process requires that an application comprises a notice of motion and supporting affidavit. After the application is lodged, the Environment Court can regulate the process as it sees fit.

6.3.2   While the Court has wide discretion to grant or refuse an application under section 86D, there are several procedural and/or substantive matters that case law suggests will factor into the Court’s decision-making. Those matters include:

Procedural

·    Whether persons other than the Council should be deprived of the opportunity to provide input prior to rules taking on legal effect; and

·    Why consultation and consideration that has been undertaken in relation to the proposed changes; and

·    Whether the application has or should be limited or publicly notified, including consideration of potential prejudice.

Substantive

·    The nature, purpose, effect and significance of the proposed changes by reference to the status quo;

·    The basis upon which it can be said that immediate legal effect is necessary to achieve the sustainable management purpose of the RMA; and

·    The spatial extent of the areas which are to become subject to the proposed changes and/or how many properties will potentially be affected. Site-specific rules addressing a particular issue are more likely to be granted early legal effect.

6.3.3   In terms of the proposed change to Rule 4.1.4.1.5 NC2 and the updated Woolston Risk Management Area having immediate legal effect, a number of factors exist that may support the grant of any application under s86D, including that:

·    Rule 4.1.4.1.5 NC2 and its associated overlay are site-specific, and would impact only on landowners who will be well-aware of the existing framework;

·    That the reinstated non-complying rule would involve only the removal of the sunset clause;

·    The strategic importance of the bulk fuel storage terminals (noting that the importance of strategic infrastructure is recognised in Strategic Objective 3.3.12, Policy 4.1.2.2.1 and Policy 16.2.1.4);

·    The purpose of the rule, being to manage reverse sensitivity effects and avoid sensitive activities locating near the Terminals where they would be exposed to unacceptable risk; and

·    The existing non-complying rule has been in the District Plan for some time, and was the outcome of detailed consideration and consultation by the Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) hearing the Christchurch Replacement District Plan.

Significance

6.4       The level of significance of this option is medium consistent with section 2 of this report.

6.5       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are to be determined through the standard Schedule 1 RMA process.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.6       This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

6.7       The rūnanga conveyed, through MKT, that they do not have any concerns about the proposed plan change.

Community Views and Preferences

6.8       The Oil Companies (Mobil Oil, BP Oil and Z Energy) and Liquigas are specifically affected by this option being the owners/users of the bulk fuel storage terminals in Woolston. They support the notification of the plan change proposal and the application to the Environment Court to avoid a lacuna in the District Plan provisions.  Further to suggesting amendments to Policy 16.2.1.4, they also wish to include new provisions to Chapter 4 Hazardous Substances and Contaminated Land in relation to a Site Emergency Management Plan (SEMP) requirement; but these will be considered during the submissions and hearings stages.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.9       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

Financial Implications

6.10    If the Council resolves to notify the plan change, there are legal processes which must be followed in accordance with Schedule 1 of the RMA. This is a standard process that all plan changes must follow and if the processes are correctly followed, no particular financial risks are foreseen. There will be costs at various stages of the plan change process relating to the preparation of officer reports and a hearing in response to submissions. The scale of costs will depend on the level of complexity of the submissions received. Should the Council select this option, it will need to absorb all the processing costs, including lodgement fee for the application to the Environment Court.

6.11    Funding is to be sourced from the Planning and Strategic Transport Unit’s budget.

Legal Implications

6.12    There has been a full discussion of the legal implications throughout this report.

6.13    There is a legal process set out in the RMA which must be followed. It includes notification of the plan change followed by submissions, reporting, hearings, decisions and possible appeals.

6.14    The Environment Court will set its process for the application that a rule have immediate effect, which could involve notification.

6.15    If the Court grants the application, the non-complying rule and the updated overlay will have legal effect on the date specified in the Court Order and will then be subject to the submission and hearing process for the Council to determine whether it will make that plan change.

Risks and Mitigations  

6.16    There is a potential risk that affected landowners may argue prejudice and seek a lesser activity status.

6.16.1 Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk after the below treatments is implemented will be low.

6.16.2 Planned treatment includes further consultation with affected parties. This issue did not arise during pre-notification consultation.

Implementation

6.17    Implementation dependencies - The Schedule 1 process is determined by the Resource Management Act while the application to the Environment Court for the rule to have immediate effect will be made after the Council has approved the proposed plan change for public notification, and after the OiC is revoked. If granted, the proposed Rule 4.1.4.1.5 and the updated Woolston Risk Management Area overlay then have legal effect alongside the operative rule and overlay, and is weighted accordingly when considering resource consent applications. Proposed Rule 4.1.4.1.5 and the updated overlay will still go through the Schedule 1 plan change process as part of Plan Change 1 Woolston Risk Management Area.

6.18    Implementation timeframe – It is uncertain how long the Court process for the application would take to complete. The Schedule 1 process however could take at least a year to complete. Council staff will seek to expedite the process by working with the Oil Companies and Liquigas.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.19    The advantages of this option include:

·     Resolving an identified problem in an effective and efficient manner.

·     Improving the accuracy of the District Plan by better identifying the geographic extent of risk, thereby improving Plan efficiency. The removal of the sunset clause likewise improves certainty of the plan provisions.

·     Directing sensitive activities to locations where they will not be exposed to unacceptable risks and thereby achieving the outcomes for the industrial zones.

·     Continuing to require resource consent for breaches of the rule.

·     Maintaining long-term security for strategic infrastructure and the associated security of reliable fuel supplies including the ability of the existing strategic infrastructure to expand to meet demand as required.

·     Removing the costs for developers of discretionary and non-complying activities near the terminals to prepare individual full Quantitative Risk Assessments (QRAs).

·     Fostering investment certainty in the ongoing operation and upgrading of strategic infrastructure, and likewise providing certainty for other landowners contemplating sensitive activities regarding locations where such activities would not be exposed to an unacceptable level of risk.

6.20    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Council will be absorbing processing costs, including lodgement fees for the application to the Environment Court.

·   There is no guarantee the application may be granted.

7.   Option 2 – Approve Proposed Plan Change 1 for public notification without application to the Environment Court

Option Description

7.1       This option will involve the proposed change to Rule 4.1.4.1.5 NC2 and the updated Woolston Risk Management Area overlay to be part of the proposed plan change without having immediate legal effect and processed under Schedule 1 of the RMA as soon as the OiC is revoked on 18 March 2019.

7.2       This option will result in the rule to expire on 31 March 2019 while the out-of-date operative overlay will remain as it does not have an expiry date. Management of risks would therefore be reliant solely on the underlying zone provisions while the proposed plan change is going through the Schedule 1 process.

7.3       Sensitive activities in the surrounding Industrial Heavy and Industrial General Zones are either discretionary or non-complying, while preschool activities are permitted in the Industrial General Zone.

Significance

7.4       The level of significance of this option is medium consistent with section 2 of this report.

7.5       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are determined through the standard Schedule 1 RMA process.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.6       This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

7.7       The Oil Companies (Mobil Oil, BP Oil and Z Energy) and Liquigas are specifically affected by this option being the owners/users of the bulk fuel storage terminals in Woolston. They do not support this option as it will still create a gap or lacuna in the District Plan provisions when the sunset clause expires. They wish to protect their terminals from reverse sensitivity effects and avoid sensitive and other activities from locating in close proximity to their terminals where they would be exposed to unacceptable risk.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.8       This option is inconsistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

7.8.1   Inconsistency – the importance of strategic infrastructure is recognised in the District Plan Strategic Objective 3.3.12, Policy 4.1.2.2.1 and Policy 16.2.1.4.

7.8.2   Reason for inconsistency – Proceeding with this option will allow the non-complying rule to expire on 31 March 2019, after which Council will have limited ability to control sensitive activities that may impact on strategic infrastructure. A preschool may be established as a permitted activity close to strategic infrastructure which may result in reverse sensitivity effects.

7.8.3   Amendment necessary – a lacuna in the District Plan provisions need to be avoided by applying to the Environment Court for the change to Rule 4.1.4.1.5 NC2 and its associated updated Woolston Risk Management Area overlay to have immediate legal effect from either the date of public notification or the date of any order made by the Court.

Financial Implications

7.9       If Council selects this option, costs involved in making an application to the Environment Court are no longer required.

7.10    Proposed Plan Change 1 Woolston Risk Management Area will continue under the standard Schedule 1 process. There are costs at various stages of the plan change process.

7.11    Funding is to be sourced from the Planning and Strategic Transport Unit’s budget.

Legal Implications

7.12    There is no legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision. The proposed plan change will proceed under the standard Schedule 1 process of the RMA.

Risks and Mitigations  

7.13    There is a risk of a preschool to be established in the Industrial General Zone as a permitted activity if the Council selects this option.  This may result in Council’s limited ability to control such a use that may impact on strategic infrastructure after 31 March 2019.

7.13.1 Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk after the below treatment is implemented will be medium.

7.13.2 Planned treatment include liaising with Building Consent and Resource Consent officers about the issues involving sensitive activities establishing close to strategic infrastructure. Under the Building Act 2004 legislation however Council would not have any ability to decline a proposal on reverse sensitivity grounds.

Implementation

7.14    By selecting this option, Proposed Plan Change 1 Woolston Risk Management Area, including the change to the non-complying rule and the updated overlay, will go through the standard Schedule 1 RMA process.

7.15    Implementation timeframe – The standard plan change process may take up to a year or more depending on whether there are hearings or appeals to be resolved.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Council will not bear any costs for any lodgement fees in making an application to the Environment Court and processing costs.

7.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   There will be a lacuna in the District Plan provisions when the sunset clause expires on 31 March 2019 and Proposed Plan Change 1 is still going through the standard Schedule 1 RMA process.

·   Any proposals to establish a sensitive activity in the Industrial Heavy or Industrial General Zones are either discretionary or non-complying. The more enabling activity status (particularly discretionary for the Industrial General Zone) would signal that such activities may be appropriate on a case by case basis.

·   Under the Industrial General Zone rules, preschool activities could be established as a permitted activity close to the terminals. The Council’s ability to control such activities that may impact on strategic infrastructure becomes extremely limited after 31 March 2019.

·   The cost to the District and wider region of a constrained fuel supply could be significant in the event a sensitive activity or otherwise inappropriate activity was located near a bulk fuel storage terminal as it could lead to constraints on operations and development required to meet increasing community fuel demands.

8.   Option 3 – Do nothing and let the sunset clause expire on 31 March 2019

Option Description

8.1       This option will result in the non-complying rule expiring on 31 March 2019. Management of risk would therefore be reliant solely on the underlying zone provisions. Sensitive activities in the surrounding Industrial Heavy and Industrial General Zones are either discretionary or non-complying; a preschool is a permitted activity in the Industrial General Zone.

8.2       In the event of the above, a complying preschool proposal in the Industrial General Zone for example will not trigger the need for any form of resource consent. The Council’s ability to assess the use would be limited to the more procedural Building Act 2004 legislation, which does not include any ability to decline a proposal on reverse sensitivity grounds. Subsequently, any additions or modifications to the oil terminals would be subject to an assessment of their environmental effects on the preschool.

8.3       In addition, the Risk Management Areas shown on Planning Map 47A would not reflect the updated Quantitative Risk Assessments for each terminal.

Significance

8.4       The level of significance of this option is medium consistent with section 2 of this report.

8.5       There will be no engagement requirements for this option.

Impact on Mana Whenua

8.6       This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

8.7       The Oil Companies (Mobil Oil, BP Oil and Z Energy) and Liquigas are specifically affected by this option being the owners/users of the bulk fuel storage terminals in Woolston. They do not support this option. The sunset clause needs to be removed and the geographic extent of the Risk Management Areas in Woolston updated to protect their terminals from reverse sensitivity effects and avoid sensitive and other activities from locating close to the terminals where they would be exposed to unacceptable risk.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

8.8       This option is inconsistent with Council’s Plans and Policies

8.8.1   Inconsistency – The importance of strategic infrastructure is recognised in the District Plan Strategic Objective 3.3.12, Policy 4.1.2.2.1 and Policy 16.2.1.4.

8.8.2   Reason for inconsistency – Proceeding with this option will allow the non-complying rule to expire on 31 March 2019, after which Council will have limited ability to control sensitive activities that may impact on strategic infrastructure. A preschool may be established as a permitted activity close to strategic infrastructure which may result in reverse sensitivity effects.

8.8.3   Amendment necessary – a lacuna in the District Plan provisions need to be avoided by applying to the Environment Court for the change to Rule 4.1.4.1.5 NC2 and its associated updated Woolston Risk Management Area overlay to have immediate legal effect from either the date of public notification or the date of any order made by the Court.

Financial Implications

8.9       If Council selects this option, costs involved in making an application to the Environment Court is no longer incurred.

8.10    There will be no plan change costs involved with this option.

Legal Implications

8.11    There is no legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision.

Risks and Mitigations  

8.12    There is a risk (albeit low) of a complying preschool to be established in the Industrial General Zone as a permitted activity if the Council selects this option.  This may result in Council’s limited ability to control such a use that may impact on strategic infrastructure after 31 March 2019.

8.12.1 Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk after the below treatment is implemented will be medium.

8.12.2 Planned treatment include liaising with Building Consent and Resource Consent officers about the issues involving sensitive activities establishing close to strategic infrastructure. Under the Building Act 2004 legislation however Council would not have any ability to decline a proposal on reverse sensitivity grounds.

Implementation

8.13    By selecting this option, there is no implementation process and timeframes involved.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   Council will not bear any fees and processing costs for a plan change and in making an application to the Environment Court.

8.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   There will be a lacuna in the District Plan provisions when the sunset clause expires on 31 March 2019 and Proposed Plan Change 1 is still going through the standard Schedule 1 process.

·   Any proposals to establish a sensitive activity in the Industrial Heavy or Industrial General Zones are either discretionary or non-complying. The more enabling activity status (particularly discretionary for the Industrial General Zone) would signal that such activities may be appropriate on a case by case basis.

·   Under the Industrial General Zone rules, preschool activities could be established as a permitted activity close to the terminals. The Council’s ability to control such activities that may impact on strategic infrastructure becomes extremely limited after 31 March 2019.

·   The District Plan will contain misleading and ineffective references to an outdated risk management area.

·   The cost to the District and wider region of a constrained fuel supply could be significant in the event a sensitive activity or otherwise inappropriate activity was located near a bulk fuel storage terminal as it could lead to constraints on operations and development required to meet increasing community fuel demands.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A to RPC 6 March 2019 Report - Plan Change 1 WRMA Text Amendments

23

b

Attachment B to RPC 6 March 2019 Report - Plan Change 1 WRMA - Proposed Change to Planning Map 47A

28

c

Attachment C to RPC 6 March 2019 Report - Plan Change 1 WRMA - Proposed Change to Planning Map Legend

29

d  

Attachment D to RPC 6 March 2019 Report - Plan change 1 WRMA - Section 32 Evaluation Report (Under Separate Cover)

 

e

Attachment E to RPC 6 March 2019 Report - Plan Change 1 WRMA - Liquigas QRA

30

f

Attachment F to RPC 6 March 2019 Report - Plan Change 1 WRMA - Mobil QRA

145

g

Attachment G to RPC 6 March 2019 Report - Plan Change 1 WRMA - Combined Summary of QRA

249

h

Attachment H to RPC 6 March 2019 Report - Plan Change 1 WRMA - Copy of Plan Change Text Amendments

262

i

Attachment I to RPC 6 March 2019 Report - Plan Change 1 WRMA - Proposed Change to Planning Map 47A

265

j

Attachment J to RPC 6 March 2019 Report - Plan Change 1 WRMA - Proposed Change to Planning Map Legend

266

k

Attachment K to RPC 6 March 2019 Report - Plan Change 1 WRMA - Map Showing Existing and Proposed Overlays

267

 

 

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

Marie Pollisco - Policy Planner

Paul Waiting - Team Leader City Planning

Adele Radburnd - Team Leader City Planning

Approved By

Polly Leeming - Corporate Counsel

David Griffiths - Head of Planning & Strategic Transport

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Regulatory Performance Committee

06 March 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Regulatory Performance Committee

06 March 2019

 

PDF Creator


Regulatory Performance Committee

06 March 2019

 

PDF Creator


Regulatory Performance Committee

06 March 2019

 

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


 

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


 

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


 

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


 

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


 

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


Regulatory Performance Committee

06 March 2019

 

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


 

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


 

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


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


 

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


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Regulatory Performance Committee

06 March 2019

 

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


Regulatory Performance Committee

06 March 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Regulatory Performance Committee

06 March 2019

 

PDF Creator


Regulatory Performance Committee

06 March 2019

 

PDF Creator


Regulatory Performance Committee

06 March 2019

 

PDF Creator


Regulatory Performance Committee

06 March 2019

 

 

8.        Chairperson's Report -  Canterbury Earthquake (Resource Management Act Permitted Activities) Order 2011

Reference:

19/129652

Presenter(s):

Councillor Jamie Gough, Acting Chairperson

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Regulatory Performance Committee to be briefed on the Canterbury Earthquake (Resource Management Act Permitted Activities) Order 2011, as per Attachment A.

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Regulatory Performance Committee:

1.         Note the information in the Chairperson’s report about the Canterbury Earthquake (Resource Management Act Permitted Activities) Order 2011, and any potential for its revocation.

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       The attached memorandum responds to a request from the Mayor for information about the Canterbury Earthquakes (Resource Management Act Permitted Activities) Order 2011 (the Order), and the potential impacts of revoking this order, prior to its expiry date in June 2021.

3.2       This Order enables councils to, as quickly as possible, authorise temporary accommodation for residents and businesses that were displaced by the earthquakes, and for depots and storage facilities associated with earthquake recovery. It applies to the Selwyn, Waimakariri and Christchurch District Councils.

3.3       A total of 935 approvals for temporary accommodation have been granted under the Order, including storage facilities and depots, car parking, and commercial and residential activities. As far as we know at this point in time, the majority of these are still active, including many parking spaces and storage facilities and depots.

3.4       The Council is now only receiving between zero and two applications a month now under the Order, of which the most recent ones are for temporary construction depots associated with roading/infrastructure projects.

3.5       Legal advice is that if the Order were revoked before its expiry date, any activities currently operating under the Order would no longer derive permitted activity status from it. The Order also expressly provides that the activity will not have existing use rights. Therefore, in the event of an early revocation, many activities currently under it would need to apply for resource consent, and/or find new sites of operation.

3.6       Staff do not consider that a revocation of the Order would be the best course of action at this stage for a number of reasons, as follows:

3.6.1   There would be potential adverse effects on legitimate businesses and other activities, as many who are currently operating under the Order would be required to move or gain a resource consent (and may have difficulty gaining resource consent).

3.6.2   A revocation would be very unpopular amongst approval holders, particularly as there is the expectation that the Order will last until 2021.

3.6.3   The Order still provides a useful and niche approval process for a limited range of activities.

3.6.4   There is no evidence that revoking the Order early would contribute greatly towards Central City revitalisation. The scale of business that would be affected is relatively small, and there is no guarantee that the businesses that were originally located in the Central City would have the means or the inclination to return.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Briefing Document - Canterbury Earthquake (Resource Management Act Permitted Activities) Order 2011

271

 

 

Signatories

Author

Katie McFadden - Senior Policy Analyst

Approved By

Aaron Haymes - Head of Strategic Partnerships

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Regulatory Performance Committee

06 March 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Regulatory Performance Committee

06 March 2019

 

 

9         Resource Consents Monthly Report - January 2019

Reference:

19/158097

Contact:

John Higgins

john.higgins@ccc.govt.nz

941 8224

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to provide a monthly update to the Regulatory Performance Committee with respect to the delivery of resource consent functions. This report covers activity for the month of January 2018.

1.2       Attachment A provides graphical information relating to application numbers and performance. Key aspects of that graphical information are also discussed below.

1.3       Attachment B provides a table of key applications.  

1.4       Attachment C provides summary of customer feedback on the Resource Consents Service.

1.5       The author will be present at the Committee meeting to highlight key areas of the report and answer any questions.

 

2.  Recommendation

       That Regulatory Performance Committee:

 

1.         Receive the information in the Resource Consents Monthly Report – January 2019.

 

3.   Application Numbers

3.1       Applications received decreased from 229 in December to 186 in January.  The Unit normally sees a decrease in application numbers due to January being the traditional holiday season.

3.2       2 temporary accommodation applications were received in January.  19 District Plan certificates were issued in January.

3.3       134 applications were issued in January.  A breakdown of processing type is shown in the table below (some application types are excluded from this table).

 

 

3.4       Of the applications issued in January, the decision outcomes are reported in the table below (again some application types are excluded).

 

4.   Performance

4.1       100% of applications in January were processed within the statutory timeframe.  This exceeds the target of 99% which is an excellent result.

 

5.   List of Significant Applications

5.1       A list of significant applications received and issued is included at Attachment B.

 

6.   Customer Satisfaction

6.1       Included on the decision letter for every resource consent is a link to an electronic survey.  This survey provides feedback on the service which is reviewed regularly and feeds into the continuous improvement programme. 

6.2       The detailed results of the surveys so far for this financial year is included at Attachment C.  Overall 85% of applicants were satisfied with the service.   

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A - Key Statistics - January 2019

278

b

Attachment B - Key Applications - January 2019

286

c

Attachment C - Survey Results - January 2019

287

 

 

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

Author

John Higgins - Head of Resource Consents

Approved By

Leonie Rae - General Manager Consenting and Compliance

  


Regulatory Performance Committee

06 March 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Regulatory Performance Committee

06 March 2019

 

PDF Creator


Regulatory Performance Committee

06 March 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Regulatory Performance Committee

06 March 2019

 

 

10.    Building Consenting Unit Update

Reference:

19/161487

Presenter(s):

Robert Wright – Head of Building Consenting

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to provide an update for the Regulatory Performance Committee from the Building Consenting Unit.  This update includes information from January 2019.  Attachment A is the performance report and attachment B is a report showing year on year data trends.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Regulatory Performance Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the Building Consenting Unit Update report.

 

3.   Building Consenting Update

3.1          Key Performance Indicators:

The legislative requirement is that building consents are granted within 20 working days.

Agreed LTP level of service is to issue 95% of building consents within 19 working days from the date of acceptance.

 

 

 

LTP target achieved at 96.6%. 

The legislative requirement is to grant code compliance certificates within 20 working days. 

Agreed LTP level of service is issue 95% of code compliance certificates within 19 working days from the date of acceptance. .

 

 

 

LTP target achieved at 98.3%

LTP level of service is that 98% of inspections are carried out within three working days of customer request. 

 

LTP target achieved at 100%. 

 

3.2   Earthquake Prone Buildings

By the end of January 2019, there were 602 Christchurch buildings on the national earthquake prone building register.  During January there were four Christchurch buildings added, and ten removed due to structural strengthening being completed.  We only sent one 133AH notice to an owner requesting a Detailed Seismic Assessment reports to clarify the earthquake prone building status of their building. 

Link to the register:  https://epbr.building.govt.nz/

3.3   Stakeholder Engagement

         Building Consenting managers meet and collaborate regularly with a number of our customers including other councils across the country, Master Builders, Certified Builders, Architects NZ, Housing NZ, and both large and smaller group home builders.

 

 

3.4       Pre-Application Meetings

             Pre-application meetings are available for projects requiring building consents, resource consents or both.  Discussions with applicants and/or their representatives are held prior to lodgement of the application and can be especially helpful before or at the design stage.  The meeting(s) will involve as many staff as required (e.g. a planner, senior inspector, eco-advisor, case manager) to assist applicants with submitting quality applications. 

The Building Consenting Unit are required to review pre-application customer satisfaction survey results and review issues quarterly for resolution.  The most recent survey result is from October to December 2018, with 91.07% satisfaction.

3.5       Building Warrants of Fitness

A building warrant of fitness is a statement signed by the building owner (or owners agent), stating that the requirements of the building’s compliance schedule have been fully complied with in the previous 12 months.

Received warrants of fitness are regularly audited for accuracy.  During January, there were eight audits completed (140 this financial year).  The number was somewhat lower in January due to annual leave and a focus on progressing a new process for audits.  

3.6       Customer Satisfaction

The Building Consenting Unit send short surveys to our customers each week as one of our measures to gauge customer satisfaction.  Generally, customers are satisfied or very satisfied with our service.  Respondents comment that our staff are helpful and assist them well throughout the building consenting process.  Generally, comments indicating dissatisfaction are around the cost.  Surveys from January for customer satisfaction resulted in another positive month at 76.53%.  The graph below shows results from the last six months. 

Managers and team leaders receive survey results weekly and deal with any issues raised with both the customer and consenting staff if necessary.  Results and comments are registered so common themes for improvement can be identified and resolved where possible. 

 

 

 

3.7       Eco-Design

The Eco Design Service workload for January reached 31 individual consultations for residential building (monthly target: 25), working with designers, building consent officers, and product suppliers.  The EDA service was also involved with two projects from BRANZ on IAQ (indoor air quality) for new buildings, and the LCA (life cycle analysis).  The EDA service is also in the midst of planning the 2019 National EDA Conference, hosted this year by Auckland City Council.

 

3.8       Significant Consents in January 2019:

Address

Value of Building Work

Building Consent Details

 

105 North Avon Road

5,800,000

Construction of church and community centre. 

2 Homestead Lane, Ilam

5,000,000

Construction of Garden Hall (Student accommodation) and Energy centre – Stage 1 of 4. 

17 Carmen road, Hornby

4,250,000

Addition and alteration to retail/hospitality complex – stage 3 of 6.

 

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Building Consenting Performance Report January 2019

292

b

Building Consenting Trends - January 2012-2019

295

 

 

Signatories

Author

Robert Wright - Head of Building Consenting

Approved By

Leonie Rae - General Manager Consenting and Compliance

  


Regulatory Performance Committee

06 March 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Regulatory Performance Committee

06 March 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 

 



[1] E.g. residential, care facilities, education activities and preschools, guest accommodation, health care facilities, hospitals and custodial accommodation.