Urban Development and Transport Committee

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Urban Development and Transport Committee will be held on:

 

Date:                                    Thursday 31 March 2022

Time:                                   9.30am

Venue:                                 Held by Audio/Visual Link

Under the current provisions of the Covid-19 Protection Framework (traffic lights) the meeting is open to the public through access to the live broadcasting of the meeting: http://councillive.ccc.govt.nz/live-stream

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Mike Davidson

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Catherine Chu

Councillor Melanie Coker

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor Celeste Donovan

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor James Gough

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Sam MacDonald

Councillor Jake McLellan

Councillor Phil Mauger

Councillor Sara Templeton

 

 

25 March 2022

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Jane Davis

General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

Tel: 941 8884

 

 

Simone Gordon

Committee and Hearings Advisor

941 6527

Simone.gordon@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nzNote:  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/

 


Urban Development and Transport Committee

31 March 2022

 

Urban development and transport committee of the Whole - Terms of Reference Ngā Ārahina Mahinga

 

 

Chair

Councillor Davidson

Deputy Chair

Councillor Scandrett

Membership

The Mayor and All Councillors

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

 

Delegations

The Council delegates to the Urban Development and Transport Committee authority to:

·         Monitor and make decisions regarding the Council’s Roads, footpaths and streetscapes in accordance with the Council’s Long Term Plan.

·         Monitor and make decisions on the Council’s Transport functions including road operations, parking, public transport, cycle ways, harbours and marine structures in accordance with the Council’s Long Term Plan.

·         Make all decisions in connection with the Major Cycleway Routes programme, including final route selections and anything precedent to the exercise by the Council of its power to acquire any property, subject to:

a.       The Committee and affected Community Boards being briefed prior to any public consultation commencing on any Major Cycleway Route project.

·         Make all decision in connection with the Lincoln Road (Wrights to Curletts) Project.

·         Make decisions regarding the District Plan.

·         Monitor the Council’s regulatory and compliance functions

·         Monitor the Council’s regulatory and compliance functions under:

o   Resource Management Act 1991 and related legislation

o   Building Act 2004 and the New Zealand Building Code

o   Dog Control Act 1996

o   Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012

o   Local Government Act 1974 and Local Government Act 2002

o   District Plan

o   Bylaws

o   Other regulatory matters

(For the avoidance of doubt, these powers relate specifically to the Council’s regulatory and compliance functions. The Council retains its authority on matters relating to the Resource Management Act reform.)

·         Approve the Council’s list of hearings commissioners under the Resource Management Act 1991.

Bylaws

The Council delegates to the Committee authority to:

·         Oversee the development of new bylaws within the Committee’s terms of reference, up to and including adopting draft bylaws for consultation.

·         Oversee the review of the following bylaws, up to and including adopting draft bylaws for consultation.

o   Cruising and Prohibited Times on Roads Bylaw 2014

o   Marine, River and Lake Facilities Bylaw 2017

o   Stock on Roads Bylaw 2017

o   Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017

Submissions

·         The Council delegates to the Committee authority:

·         To consider and approve draft submissions on behalf of the Council on topics within its terms of reference. Where the timing of a consultation does not allow for consideration of a draft submission by the Council or relevant Committee, that the draft submission can be considered and approved on behalf of the Council.

District Plan Appeals

The Committee is authorised to:

·         Consider and resolve any consent orders requested in respect of any proceedings before the Environment Court regarding any appeal on the Christchurch District Plan.

·         Authorise counsel and Council witnesses to call evidence in support of a compromise position or positions in the alternative for the purpose of endeavouring to agree with the parties in terms of a consent order in respect of any proceedings before the Environment Court arising out of the Council’s decisions on the Christchurch District Plan.

·         Authorise any one or more officers holding the positions listed below to participate in a mediation of any proceeding before the Environment Court arising out of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991.

o   This authority shall include the power to commit the Council to a binding agreement to resolve the proceeding, provided it does not require any Council expenditure not authorised by a Council delegation. Part D - Sub-Part 1 – Community Boards 159 Delegation Date Amended

o   Any authority given under this delegation shall be on such terms and conditions as the Committee considers appropriate.

Authorised positions:

§  Head of Legal

§  Associate General Counsel

§  Corporate Counsel

§  Head of Planning and Strategic Transport

§  Team Leader City Planning

§  Principal Advisors, Planning

§  The exercise of such delegated powers shall be reported to the Council on a six-monthly basis

·         Authorise any two or more officers who, for the time being, hold any of the following positions to jointly consider, and resolve by consent order, any appeal to the Environment Court against a decision of Council on submissions to the Christchurch District Plan, where the appeal relates to an alteration of minor effect or the correction of a minor error.       

Authorised positions:

o   Head of Legal

o   Associate General Counsel

o   Corporate Counsel

o   Head of Planning and Strategic Transport

o   Team Leader City Planning

o   Principal Advisors, Planning

·                Make decisions, on behalf of the Council, in relation to any High Court proceedings arising out of decisions by the Environment Court on the Christchurch District Plan provided such decisions are consistent with professional advice.

Limitations

·                This Committee does not have the authority to set project budgets, identify preferred suppliers or award contracts. These powers remain with the Finance and Performance Committee.

·                The general delegations to this Committee exclude any specific decision-making powers that are delegated to a Community Board, another Committee of Council or Joint Committee. Delegations to staff are set out in the delegations register.

·                The Council retains the authority to adopt policies, strategies and bylaws.

·                The Council retains its authority on matters relating to the Resource Management Act reform.

The following matters are prohibited from being subdelegated in accordance with LGA 2002 Schedule 7 Clause 32(1) :

·                the power to make a rate; or

·                the power to make a bylaw; or

·                the power to borrow money, or purchase or dispose of assets, other than in accordance with the long-term plan; or

·                the power to adopt a long-term plan, annual plan, or annual report; or

·                the power to appoint a chief executive; or

·                the power to adopt policies required to be adopted and consulted on under this Act in association with the long-term plan or developed for the purpose of the local governance statement; or

·                the power to adopt a remuneration and employment policy.

Chairperson may refer urgent matters to the Council

As may be necessary from time to time, the Committee Chairperson is authorised to refer urgent matters to the Council for decision, where this Committee would ordinarily have considered the matter. In order to exercise this authority:

·                The Committee Advisor must inform the Chairperson in writing the reasons why the referral is necessary

·                The Chairperson must then respond to the Committee Advisor in writing with their decision.

If the Chairperson agrees to refer the report to the Council, the Council may then assume decision making authority for that specific report.

 

 


Urban Development and Transport Committee

31 March 2022

 

Part A           Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B           Reports for Information

Part C           Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

Karakia Tīmatanga................................................................................................... 7 

C          1.        Apologies Ngā Whakapāha.......................................................................... 7

B         2.        Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga........................................... 7

C          3.        Confirmation of Previous Minutes Te Whakaāe o te hui o mua.......................... 7

B         4.        Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui.................................................................. 7

B         5.        Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga................................. 7

B         6.        Presentation of Petitions Ngā Pākikitanga.................................................... 7

Staff Reports

C          7.        NPS-UD - Pre-notification engagement for Plan Changes 13, 14, and 15........... 11

C          8.        Coastal Hazards Plan Change..................................................................... 23

C          9.        Plan Change 4 - Short-term Accommodation................................................ 31

B         10.      Transport Report to Urban Development and Transport Committee............... 41

B         11.      Planning and Consents Report - January and February 2022.......................... 57

B         12.      Regulatory Services - Building Consenting Unit Report - January and February 2022............................................................................................................. 77  

Karakia Whakamutunga

 


Urban Development and Transport Committee

31 March 2022

 

 

Karakia Tīmatanga

1.   Apologies Ngā Whakapāha  

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

2.   Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

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 Te Whakaāe o te hui o mua

That the minutes of the Urban Development and Transport Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 2 March 2022  be confirmed (refer page 8).

4.   Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui

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

 

4.1

Olivia Wannan

Olivia Wannan will speak on behalf of residents in her area regarding the use of gravel on Selwyn Street.

 

5.   Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

Deputations may be heard on a matter or matters covered by a report on this agenda and approved by the Chairperson.

 

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

6.   Presentation of Petitions Ngā Pākikitanga

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


Urban Development and Transport Committee

31 March 2022

Unconfirmed

 

 

Urban Development and Transport Committee

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                    Wednesday 2 March 2022

Time:                                   9.31am

Venue:                                 Held by Audio/Visual link

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Members

Councillor Mike Davidson

Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Catherine Chu

Councillor Melanie Coker

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor Celeste Donovan

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor James Gough

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Sam MacDonald

Councillor Phil Mauger

Councillor Sara Templeton

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Jane Davis

General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

Tel: 941 8884

 

Simone Gordon

Committee and Hearings Advisor

941 6527

Simone.gordon@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 


Part A           Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B           Reports for Information

Part C           Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

Karakia Tīmatanga: Given by Councillor Templeton

 

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies Ngā Whakapāha

Part C

Committee Resolved UDATC/2022/00009

That the apologies received from the Mayor be accepted.

Councillor Davidson/Councillor Donovan                                                                                                       Carried

 

2.   Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

 

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes Te Whakaāe o te hui o mua

Part C

Committee Resolved UDATC/2022/00010

That the minutes of the Urban Development and Transport Committee meeting held on Thursday, 3 February 2022 be confirmed, subject to correction of Councillor Johanson’s name in Item 9, page 5.

Councillor Cotter/Councillor Templeton                                                                                                         Carried

 

4.   Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui

Part B

There were no public forum presentations.

5.   Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

Part B

There were no deputations by appointment.

6.   Presentation of Petitions Ngā Pākikitanga

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.

 

Councillor Chen joined the meeting at 9:33am during consideration of Item 7.

 

7.   Central City Biannual Report July - December 2021

 

Committee Resolved Officer Recommendation accepted without change UDATC/2022/00011

Part C

That the Urban Development and Transport Committee:

1.         Receive this biannual update report on Central City regeneration activities and projects.

Councillor Chen/Councillor Templeton                                                                                                           Carried

 

 

Deputy Mayor Turner joined the meeting at 9.38am during consideration of item 8.

 

8.   Plan Change 8 - Papakāinga/Kāinga Nohoanga Zone - Final Approval

 

Committee Resolved Officer Recommendation accepted without change UDATC/2022/00012

Part C

That the Urban Development and Transport Committee:

1.    Approve, pursuant to Clause 17(2) of Schedule 1 to the Resource Management Act 1991, the changes to the District Plan introduced by its decision on Plan Change 8- Papakāinga/Kāinga Nohoanga zone – Rule Amendments, to become operative on 14 March 2022.

Councillor Davidson/Councillor Cotter                                                                                                            Carried

 

 

Karakia Whakamutunga: Given by Councillor Templeton 

 

Meeting concluded at 9.40am.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2022.

 

Councillor Mike Davidson

Chairperson


Urban Development and Transport Committee

31 March 2022

 

 

7.     NPS-UD - Pre-notification engagement for Plan Changes 13, 14, and 15

Reference Te Tohutoro:

21/1712748

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Emily Allan, Senior Policy Planner, Planning & Consents
Mark Stevenson, Planning Manager, Planning & Consents 

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

Jane Davis, GM Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services 

 

 

1.   Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek the Urban Development and Transport Committee’s approval to undertake city-wide pre-notification engagement on a suite of plan changes relating to the implementation of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) and the accompanying Schedule 1 plan changes for Heritage and Radio-communication pathways.  These plan changes are as follows:

Name

Description 

Housing Choice - Intensification Plan Change - (PC 14) 

Shaping how and where we grow as a city by enabling more development within the city’s existing footprint.

Heritage Plan Change (PC 13) 

Proposing that 11 new residential heritage areas across the city be identified in the District Plan to protect Christchurch’s special identity and character and adding a total of 65 buildings, items and interiors to the Schedule of Significant Historic Heritage.

Radio Communication pathways Plan Change (PC15) 

Protecting our emergency radio communication airspace by stopping development that blocks it.

 

1.2       The UD&T Committee will also receive a separate paper at this meeting, seeking approval to undertake pre-notification engagement on Plan Change 12 – Coastal Hazards. It is intended that the four plan changes will be consulted on as a package. The Coastal Hazards Plan Change has been separated out from this report because the public engagement on that Plan Change has already commenced.

1.3       The decisions in this report are ultimately of high significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. While the decision to undertake pre-notification consultation on the draft plan changes will not bring immediate changes to the Christchurch District Plan, the draft plan changes anticipate significant changes to the District Plan – particularly with respect to intensification. We know there is high public interest in how and where our city grows, and this has informed our approach to engagement.  We are also cognisant of the significance of the proposed plan changes to mana whenua, in relation to sites of waahi tapu and waahi taonga (refer sections 8.3-8.5 below). 

1.4       This report is provided further to a report to the UD&T Committee meeting of 3 February 2022 – ‘National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) – 2022 Work Programme’. The work programme detailed in that report, and endorsed by the Committee, included a pre-notification engagement phase (Refer to UDATC/2022/00004). 

 

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Urban Development and Transport Committee:

1.         Approve the release of the following draft plan changes for community engagement, prior to the formal notification of these plan changes later this year:

a.         Housing Choice – Intensification Plan Change (PC #)

b.         Heritage Plan Change (PC #) 

c.         Radio Communication Pathways Plan Change (PC #) 

2.         Delegate approval to the Head of Planning and Consents to make minor amendments to the draft plan changes to address any matters arising, including corrections, before commencing pre-notification engagement.

3.         Note that this pre-notification engagement period coincides with the decision to undertake pre-notification engagement on a separate Coastal Hazards Plan Change (PC12), also considered by the Urban Development & Transport Committee on 31 March 2022. 

 

Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

2.1       The Council is required (through the recent Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021) to implement the NPS-UD by 20 August 2022. The mechanism for implementing the NPS-UD is by notifying proposed changes to the Christchurch District Plan (plan changes). 

2.2       Under Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), councils are required to undertake public consultation on plan changes.[1] Pre-notification engagement is a step earlier than the formal consultation prescribed by the RMA.  There are myriad benefits to engaging with the community this way. These benefits are summarised as follows: 

2.2.1   Walking the talk with our community: The Council has repeatedly emphasised the need for consultation with our communities across the board – in the post-earthquake context and recently in its submission[2] on the recent Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply …) Amendment Bill 2021. By including this additional consultation step (even though it is an optional one), the Council (through the UD&T Committee) demonstrates its ongoing commitment to engaging with its communities on the matters that affect them. 

2.2.2   It will lead to a better product: Pre-notification consultation is often more useful for the development of a Plan Change as it enables feedback and changes to be incorporated nearer to the beginning of the process and without the at times cumbersome RMA procedural restrictions.

2.2.3   Pre-notification consultation allows technical experts to improve the quality of the work by testing the provisions: This is a particularly important consideration with this package of draft plan changes due to the significance of the provisions proposed and the time constraints that have driven their preparation. 

2.2.4   Pre-notification consultation is more accessible to citizens: Pre-notification consultation is an opportunity for the Council to ask questions of its community as a whole, not just the technical experts. The less prescriptive approach with pre-notification consultation means that the Council can ask wider-ranging, more accessible questions as part of the consultation and bring our community along with it.

Community engagement can help to ‘ground-truth’ where the logical boundaries should be drawn on the maps. 

2.2.5   Pre-notification consultation can run in parallel to the other work streams: Staff are continuing to gather evidence and draft the Section 32 reports that are required under the RMA for the plan change over the coming months, in parallel to the pre-notification consultation. Planning for pre-notification consultation does not affect the work programme’s timelines. 

2.2.6   The Council is required to undertake a degree of pre-notification consultation anyway: With the plan changes, the Council is required (under Schedule 1 of the RMA) to engage with stakeholders and directly affected parties prior to notification. With the broad scope of the Plan Changes, identifying and reaching all of these stakeholders is challenging and there is a risk that affected parties are missed. By taking the pre-notification consultation to the wider public, this risk diminishes.  

2.2.7   The opportunities to participate – and appeal – are already limited: On a technical level, the Intensification Streamlined Planning Process introduced through the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply) Amendment Act 2021 will remove   appeal rights. It is therefore preferable to build in a pre-notification consultation process to lift public participation and engagement at the consultation phase, and lessen the potential impact of limiting the rights to appeal.

 

3.   Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

Option not to carry out pre-notification consultation

3.1       The UD&T Committee can opt to decline the staff recommendation to carry out pre-notification consultation on the draft plan changes. 

3.2       This option would contradict the Committee’s February 2022 endorsement of the NPS-UD related work programme (Refer to UDATC/2022/00004)

3.3       Removing the pre-notification consultation step would also mean that the benefits listed above at 2.2.1 – 2.2.7 are not realised, and the Council may face additional risks. For example, not testing the approach with the public early in the process could result in issues being raised in the formal stage of the plan change and add costs to the process for Council, stakeholders, and the community - even where changes may be appropriate.

There is no option to do nothing

3.4       With respect to the wider work programme, the Council (or the UD&T Committee) does not have the option not to progress the draft plan changes because Council would not have performed its statutory duty to review the District Plan. In addition, the District Plan would not implement national and regional direction to the extent required. 

3.5       Major reforms of the RMA are underway, with new legislation due later this year and in 2023. Until the new legislation is in place, there is still a requirement to give effect to the RMA. Work undertaken now will be able to inform the development of future plans, and also ensure that current obligations are met.

4.   Background to the Plan Changes 

4.1       The Council has received clear national direction from central government through the NPS-UD and the more recent Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021 to direct the growth of our city inwards and upwards.  

4.2       The Council and Ōtautahi Christchurch have an opportunity, through the implementation of the NPS-UD and the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021 to look ahead to how we want our city to look for future generations.

4.3       Although the Council’s submission on the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021 raised concerns about the process, and the limitations of a broad-brush, one-size-fits-all approach, it agreed that we need to concentrate growth within our city’s current footprint, rather than continuing to grow outward over the precious versatile soils on our suburban fringe. In addition, the closer people live to work and school, the less travelling people need to do, which can reduce transport-related greenhouse gas emissions.

5.   ‘Housing Choice’ Intensification Plan Change

5.1       The Housing Choice Intensification Plan Change is significant, comprising changes to approximately 60% of the Christchurch District Plan.  The scope is described in the following table:

In Scope

Out of Scope 

All urban residential zones, incl. associated qualifying matters

Any changes to Rural zones, including re-zoning of green fields

All commercial centre zones, incl. surrounding intensification and qualifying matters

Residential Zones: Large Lot & Settlement – or their equivalents

Associated required changes to engineering controls, fencing, access, etc.

Changes to any zones in Banks Peninsula, outside our ‘urban environment’

 

Changes to provisions controlling industrial land outside a walkable catchment of centres

Changes to zones and provisions controlling commercial zones that are not commercial centres (e.g. Large Format, Office) where this is seen to not be part of a centre

 

Medium Density Residential Standards 

5.2       This Plan Change ratifies the Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS) that are set out in Schedule 3A of the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021. These standards increase minimum residential densities by enabling up to three storeys across most of the city, and up to three houses per section, without requiring a resource consent – effectively re-zoning the city’s urban residential areas to medium density and higher. As per the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act, the MDRS must apply to all relevant residential zones within the ‘urban environment’. 

5.3       Staff have determined that the Christchurch urban environment, subject to the MDRS, includes Lyttelton. Briefly, this is because Lyttelton is part of the same labour and housing market as Ōtautahi Christchurch. Akaroa and Diamond Harbour do not meet the same definition, and are therefore not included in the urban environment. (Refer to attachments for maps and further explanation).  

Qualifying Matters 

5.4       The plan change also sets out Qualifying Matters. These can limit intensification – to the extent necessary to accommodate them. Staff set out a proposed approach and a draft list of proposed Qualifying Matters in the report to the 2 December 2021 UD&T meeting, which was endorsed by the Committee (Refer: UDATC/2021/00030). 

5.5       There is a high threshold for inclusion as a Qualifying Matter, with a strong evidence base required. Qualifying Matters are not a way to negate any or all intensification – other controls e.g. requiring resource consent will apply.  There are some features in the District Plan, which could be considered Qualifying Matters but which will not limit height/density (e.g. some specific hazard constraints like low-risk flooding, liquefaction management). 

5.6       The following table lists the Qualifying Matters staff are seeking to include through this Plan Change:

Matters of National Importance (s6 of RMA):

Other Matters in the Christchurch District Plan: 

New matters proposed to be included: 

Outstanding & Significant Natural Features

Public open space zones

Coastal hazard areas

Areas of significant indigenous vegetation & ecological significance

Designated areas

Lyttelton Port – CityDepot (Hillsborough)

Sites of Waahi Tapu; Waahi Taonga; wai and other taonga

Residential Character Areas

Radio corridors (Justice Precinct)

Significant Natural hazards

Electricity transmission corridors

Vacuum Sewer networks (Shirley, Aranui and Prestons)

Historic Heritage & Heritage Areas

Airport noise contours

Waterbody setbacks

Significant and Other Trees

 

Electricity transmission corridors

Airport noise contours & protection surfaces

Heritage areas that will be introduced via PC13

Lyttelton Port layers

State Highway interface sites

NZ Rail network interface sites

 

5.7       As part of carrying District Plan Matters through as potential Qualifying Matters, staff have had to review them and establish an evidence base.  As a result, staff envisage some changes to existing District Plan Matters, such as Character Areas, through this assessment process. 

5.8       Further details relating to these Qualifying Matters are provided in the attachments accompanying this report.

Height limits

5.9       Through the Plan Change, the Council will review the height limits in the city centre zone and local centre zones. 

5.10    With respect to city centre zones, the NPS-UD directs Tier 1 Councils to “maximise development capacity” in city centre zones, i.e. by increasing height limits significantly. Staff are proposing no maximum height limit in the CBD as part of this plan change, noting that issues of shade, wind, and urban design will be managed through the District Plan. 

5.11    This is a shift from the current Christchurch District Plan, with maximum heights of up to 30m in some parts of the central city. The current central city height limits were set post-earthquake through the Christchurch District Plan review, and are relatively conservative compared with other cities in New Zealand. However, the current maximum heights through the District Plan review were based on economic evidence, which has changed significantly since 2016/17. Staff note that matters of seismicity and engineering fall under the Building Act 2004, rather than the District Plan. 

5.12    For the other commercial centres: town centre zones, local centre zones, neighbourhood zones, staff are proposing cascading height limits, commensurate with the surrounding areas and with the services provided. The general rule is that greater levels of intensification will be permitted in areas with higher levels of accessibility and demand.

5.13    Maps have been included in the attachments to reflect the different zones. 

Financial Contributions 

5.14    The RMA has always enabled councils to charge Financial Contributions for developments. However, last year’s Amendment Act broadened the Council’s ability to levy Financial Contributions to now include developments that do not require a resource consent (e.g. developments that are now permitted under the new MDRS).  

5.15    Financial Contributions differ from Development Contributions in terms of what they can be used for. Development Contributions are narrower in scope, and are used to recover the costs of capital expenditure to service growth (i.e. for new assets or increased capacity). Financial Contributions can be collected for a wider range of reasons (i.e. to address the direct impacts of a particular development). Councils can charge developers both Financial Contributions and Development Contributions, but cannot recover more than the financial impact of the development. 

5.16    Through the Plan Change, staff are proposing to collect Financial Contributions to mitigate some of the adverse effects of increased development and to improve the environment in residential, commercial and industrial development areas. The first area staff are investigating is how Financial Contributions could be collected from developers to help the Council maintain and enhance urban tree canopy cover and to help offset climate change effects of development.

5.17    Staff are also investigating the use of Financial Contributions for Greenfield density and also Financial Contributions from the Crown in lieu of development contributions (which the Crown is exempt from). 

5.18    In the future, staff will consider how Financial Contributions can be used for stormwater infrastructure, among other matters. 

 

6.   Heritage Plan Change

6.1       This Plan Change incorporates:

6.1.1   An overall revision of the historic heritage rules. 

6.1.2   Corrections to the Schedule of Significant Historic Heritage (Appendix 9.3.7.2). 

6.1.3   The scheduling of around 44 additional buildings or items for protection.

6.1.4   The scheduling of around 29 additional heritage interiors for protection. 

6.1.5   The introduction of 11 residential heritage areas.

6.2       Some aspects of the Heritage Plan Change are being carried out under the standard Schedule 1 RMA process, while others are being included as part of the recently-introduced Intensification Planning Instrument process. The differentiations will be clearly explained as part of our consultation document. 

Residential Heritage Areas

6.3       Residential Heritage Areas are proposed to be a new inclusion to the District Plan. There is some overlap between Residential Heritage Areas and Character Areas – for example emphasis on streetscape. However, Residential Heritage Areas have additional heritage values, and may be more diverse in character. Heritage is a matter of national importance under section 6 of the RMA.  

6.4       There are high thresholds to meet for inclusion as Residential Heritage Areas. At a high level, they include buildings and features which collectively, rather than individually, are of significance to the city’s heritage and identity, and are required to be sufficiently intact. The number of areas assessed and subsequently discounted illustrate the high threshold: of the original 2010 longlist of 89 areas, 7 have been taken forward. A further 4 additional areas have been included – making 11 in total for this proposed Plan Change. 

Links with NPS-UD 

6.5       The Heritage Plan Change is being progressed at the same time as the Housing Choice Plan Change due to the potential impact of intensification – particularly for the as-yet unscheduled Residential Heritage Areas. Intensification could result in loss of heritage value e.g. where heritage value is associated with degree of openness or style of houses.

6.6       As a section 6 matter, heritage is being carried through as a Qualifying Matter, which will limit the impact of intensification to a degree. 

7.   Radio Communications Pathway Plan Change

7.1       Staff are progressing a Plan Change to protect pathways for radio communications in emergency and in day-to-day operations.  This predominantly relates to the new Justice and Emergency Service Precinct, bounded by Lichfield, Colombo, St Asaph and Durham Streets.

7.2       The Plan Change will include building height restrictions in the city centre zone in specific areas.

Links with NPS-UD

7.3       As noted at para 5.9 above, staff are working through height limits in the city centre zone, with a current proposal of no maximum height limit in this area – in accordance with the NPS-UD.

7.4       It is anticipated that radio communication pathways will become a Qualifying Matter, which will mean that heights can be limited in specific areas. This will ensure the radio communications pathways are preserved.   

 

8.   Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

8.1       This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2021 - 2031):

8.1.1   Activity: Strategic Planning, Future Development and Regeneration

·     Level of Service: 9.5.1.1 Guidance on where and how the city grows through the District Plan. - Maintain operative District Plan, including monitoring outcomes to inform changes, and giving effect to national and regional policy statements

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

8.2       The decision sought is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

8.3       The decision to undertake pre-notification engagement on the suite of Plan Changes does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value.

8.4       However, the plan changes proposed could specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions.

8.5       Council staff are working with iwi partners through the development of the plan changes via Mahaanui Kurataiao Limited. 

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

8.6       This report and the Plan Change is consistent with the Kia tūroa te Ao |  Ōtautahi Christchurch Climate Resilience Strategy. It is also consistent with the Council’s declaration of a Climate Emergency in 2019.

8.7       Specifically, the proposed plan changes provide for increased density in the city and for growing within the city’s existing footprint rather than spreading - ‘growing up and in, rather than out’. This approach will have the longer term benefits of protecting soils in the city’s hinterland and will help to limit the distances people have to travel between work, school, and home. This will in turn help to reduce emissions. 

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

8.8       Accessibility considerations with this report are two-fold.

8.8.1   Staff are aware of the need to engage a wide range of communities through our pre-notification engagement on the draft Plan, and have designed our communications and engagement plan to enable and encourage a wide range of people to participate.  We do note that the opportunities for face-to-face engagement, especially larger workshops or drop in sessions, are currently limited within the Government’s COVID response framework.

8.8.2   The Plan Changes themselves take physical accessibility into consideration while looking at areas that may be suitable for increased development.

9.   Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

9.1       Cost to Implement – The cost of carrying out pre-notification engagement on the draft Plan Change can be met from operational budgets.  By bringing together the different plan changes as one suite for public engagement, cost efficiencies can be identified. 

9.2       Maintenance/Ongoing costs – There will be limited ongoing costs that are directly attributable to the decision to undertake pre-notification engagement. There will be further costs associated with the notification of the Plan Change and the subsequent Hearings Process. Again, by joining up this process with the NPS-UD related plan changes, cost efficiencies can be identified.

9.3       Funding Source - Funding for the programme of Plan Changes has been sought through the Annual Plan 2022/23.

10. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

Statutory power to undertake proposals in the report Te Manatū Whakahaere Kaupapa

10.1    The Council is required to give effect to the NPS-UD by 20 August 2022, through a plan change. Pre-notification engagement is not statutorily required, but a degree of consultation with affected parties is required (under Schedule 1 of the RMA). As noted above, a wider pre-notification engagement period meets the intent of targeted engagement pre-notification, without the risk of missing affected parties.

10.2    Consultation on the plan changes is also required under the Local Government Act, given the significance of the matters. 

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

10.3    The Legal Services Unit has reviewed this report. 

11. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

11.1    The benefits of pre-notification engagement are listed above at para 2.2.  There are some risks with this process – predominantly relating to the constrained timeframes available.

11.2    There is a risk that the Council may not meet the statutory deadlines for notifying the NPS-UD Plan Change if the pre-notification consultation period is extended and/or if an overwhelming amount of public feedback is received.  Staff consider that the benefits of pre-notification consultation outweigh the risks. Further, these risks will be mitigated with clear communication and project management.

 

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

PC13 Heritage - Aerial Maps List - 18 March 2022 (Under Separate Cover)

 

b

PC13 Heritage - Appendix 9.3.7.2 track changes - 22 March 2022 (Under Separate Cover)

 

c

PC13 Heritage - Evaluation of options - 22 March 2022 (Under Separate Cover)

 

d

PC13 Heritage - Finalised HAMs- 22 March 2022 (Under Separate Cover)

 

e

PC13 Heritage - Heritage Statements (Under Separate Cover)

 

f

PC13 Heritage - Issues Table - 22 March 2022 (Under Separate Cover)

 

g

PC13 Heritage - List of Heritage Statements (Under Separate Cover)

 

h

PC13 Heritage - List of new buildings or items and  interiors to be scheduled, 22 March 2022 (Under Separate Cover)

 

i

PC13 Heritage - Plan Change (Under Separate Cover)

 

j

PC13 Heritage - Residential Heritage Areas - Aerial Maps (V4) - 14 March 2022 (Under Separate Cover)

 

k

PC14 Housing Choice - Draft Plan Change (Under Separate Cover)

 

l

PC14 Housing Choice - Commercial Chapter objectives, policy and provisions draft amendments - 22 March 2022 (Under Separate Cover)

 

m

PC14 Housing Choice - Commercial Chapter Options evaluation tables for District Centres - 22 March 2022 (Under Separate Cover)

 

n

PC14 Housing Choice - Commercial Chapter Options evaluation tables for Neighbourhood Centres - 22 March 2022 (Under Separate Cover)

 

o

PC14 Housing Choice - Definitions Chapter draft amendments - 22 March 2022 (Under Separate Cover)

 

p

PC14 Housing Choice - Financial Contributions Draft amendments - 22 March 2022 (Under Separate Cover)

 

q

PC14 Housing Choice - Financial Contributions Issues and Options evaluation tables - 22 March 2022 (Under Separate Cover)

 

r

PC14 Housing Choice - Industrial Chapter and Mixed Use Zone Issues, Options and Provisions evaluation tables - 22 March 2022 (Under Separate Cover)

 

s

PC14 Housing Choice - Medium Density Residential Standards Enablement Assessment (Part 1) - January 2022 (Under Separate Cover)

 

t

PC14 Housing Choice - Medium Density Residential Standards Enablement Assessment (Part 2) - January 2022 (Under Separate Cover)

 

u

PC14 Housing Choice - Qualifying Matters - Investigation of Suburban Character Areas - February 2022 (Under Separate Cover)

 

v

PC14 Housing Choice - Qualifying Matters Options evaluation table - 22 March 2022 (Under Separate Cover)

 

w

PC14 Housing Choice - Qualifying Matters Trees Issues table - 22 March 2022 (Under Separate Cover)

 

x

PC14 Housing Choice - Qualifying Matters Trees Options evaluation table - 22 March 2022 (Under Separate Cover)

 

y

PC14 Housing Choice - Residential Chapter High Density Residential Zone Provisions draft amendments - 22 March 2022 (Under Separate Cover)

 

z

PC14 Housing Choice - Residential Chapter Medium Density Residential Zone Provisions draft amendments - March 2022 (Under Separate Cover)

 

aa

PC14 Housing Choice - Residential Chapter objectives and policies draft amendments - 22 March 2022 (Under Separate Cover)

 

ab

PC14 Housing Choice - Residential Chapter Options evaluation table - 22 March 2022 (Under Separate Cover)

 

ac

PC14 Housing Choice - Strategic Directions Issues table - 22 March 2022 (Under Separate Cover)

 

ad

PC14 Housing Choice - Strategic Directions objectives draft amendments - 22 March 2022 (Under Separate Cover)

 

ae

PC14 Housing Choice - Strategic Directions Options evaluation table - 22 March 2022 (Under Separate Cover)

 

af

PC14 Housing Choice - Subdivision Chapter Issues and Options evaluation tables - March 2022 (Under Separate Cover)

 

ag

PC14 Housing Choice -Three Waters Issues 22 March (Under Separate Cover)

 

ah

PC14 Housing Choice - Three Waters evaluation of options 22 March (Under Separate Cover)

 

ai

PC15 Radio-communications pathways - CJESP Cost Benefit Analysis (Final) - March 2022 (Under Separate Cover)

 

aj

PC15 Radio-communications pathways - CJESP Radio Corridor Project Structural Report (Draft) - March 2022 (Under Separate Cover)

 

ak

PC15 Radio-communications pathways - Issues paper - March 2022 (Under Separate Cover)

 

al

PC15 Radio-communications pathways - Issues table - March 2022 (Under Separate Cover)

 

am

PC15 Radio-communications pathways - Options assessment - March 2022 (Under Separate Cover)

 

an

PC15 Radio-communications pathways - Plan change - March 2022 (Under Separate Cover)

 

ao

PC15 Radio-communications pathways - Radio Engineering Requirements for CJESP - March 2022 (Under Separate Cover)

 

ap

PC15 Radio-communications pathways - Radio link Mitigation Options Report - March 2022 (Under Separate Cover)

 

aq

PC 14 Housing Choice – Final Draft High-level Mapping (Under Separate Cover)

 

 

 

Additional background information may be noted in the below table:

Document Name

Location / File Link

 

 

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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 Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Emily Allan - Senior Policy Planner

Jasmine Mouat - Senior Policy Analyst

Adair Bruorton - Programme Manager

David Falconer - Team Leader City Planning

Amanda Legge - Senior Communications Advisor

Kim deLeijer - Principal Advisor Communications

Ike Kleynbos - Senior Policy Planner

Brent Pizzey - Senior Legal Counsel

Mark Stevenson - Manager Planning

Approved By

John Higgins - Head of Planning & Consents

Jane Davis - General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

  


Urban Development and Transport Committee

31 March 2022

 

 

8.     Coastal Hazards Plan Change

Reference Te Tohutoro:

22/219251

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Mark Rushworth, Principal Advisor, Planning, Planning & Consents
Mark Stevenson, Manager Planning, Planning & Consents 

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

Jane Davis, General Manager, Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services 

 

 

1.   Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek the Urban Development and Transport Committee’s approval to undertake city-wide pre-notification engagement on the proposed Coastal Hazards Plan Change (PC12). 

1.2       The decisions in this report are of high significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy due to the impacts of coastal hazards management on low-lying inland and coastal communities.  The level of significance is evident from reports that estimate the value of property (private and Council-owned) subject to the impacts of coastal hazards, and has been articulated in previous Council/Committee reports on this topic.   

1.3       This report and the attachments were developed with the oversight and endorsement of the Coastal Hazards Working Group (CHWG), which is comprised of elected members from Council and Environment Canterbury, and two Papatipu Rūnanga representatives.

 

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Urban Development and Transport Committee:

1.         Approve the release of the draft Coastal Hazards plan change for community engagement.

2.         Note that this pre-notification engagement period coincides with the decision to undertake pre-notification engagement on a suite of plan changes, associated with the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD), also being considered by the Urban Development & Transport Committee on 31 March 2022. 

 

3.   Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1       Christchurch is more exposed to coastal hazards than other metropolitan areas in NZ, including Auckland and Wellington. Across the Christchurch District, approximately 25,000 properties are exposed to coastal hazards risks over the next 120 years. NIWA estimates that with 1m of sea level rise, the replacement value of buildings is approximately $6.7 billion, the majority of which are residential properties.

3.2       As a region, Canterbury has around $1 billion of local government owned infrastructure exposed to coastal hazards, the majority of which is in Christchurch.  As sea levels rise, Canterbury has the most public infrastructure exposed to coastal hazards in New Zealand.

3.3       The Council has a statutory duty to complete the review of the District Plan, following the withdrawal of the coastal hazard provisions from the District Plan Review.  We also have a statutory duty, as part of that review, to ensure that the District Plan gives effect to the national and regional direction in the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement and the Regional Policy Statement.

3.4       The District Plan review had intended to introduce coastal hazards provisions into the Plan however, following submissions at the time, an Order in Council directed that the proposed provisions be removed and that this matter be addressed separately. As a consequence the current District Plan does not define the full extent of areas at risk of coastal hazards and only manages some activities. Legacy provisions from the Christchurch City Plan and Banks Peninsula District Plan still apply, but these are also limited in their scope. For example, the City Plan has rules only for an area 20m from around the high tide mark, and the Banks Peninsula Plan only considers the risk of coastal hazards for subdivision, not development. As such, there is a risk of new development within communities being exposed to the impact of coastal hazards that will become more prevalent in the future. These gaps do not enable the effective management of the risks, and development could occur without appropriate controls. The District Plan therefore needs to be updated.

3.5       Evidence gathered from recent technical studies including the Coastal Hazards Assessment 2021 (T+T) and Risk Based Coastal Hazard Analysis for Land-use Planning 2021 (Jacobs) provide up to date information on the nature and extent of coastal hazards and the associated risks. These studies have both been made publically available and can be accessed via the Council’s web site.

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

Plan change options 

4.1       The Committee must progress the draft plan change because if the Committee opts not to proceed with a plan change, the Council would not have performed its statutory duty to review the District Plan. In addition, the District Plan would not implement national and regional direction to the extent required, which would not enable the effective management of the risks.  Development could occur without appropriate controls, exposing people and wider communities to flooding and erosion.

4.2       Major reforms of the Resource Management Act (RMA) are underway. Consideration has been given to whether this would merit delaying progress of a Coastal Hazards Plan Change. Advice from the Ministry for the Environment is that the existing national planning framework, including New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement, will be consolidated and carried forward into the new legislative framework and, as such, it is anticipated that national direction will still require Councils to manage the effects associated with hazards. Until the new legislation is in place there is still a requirement to give effect to the RMA. Work undertaken now will be able to inform the development of future plans, and ensure that current obligations are met.

4.3       As part of the evaluation of the need for and approach to the proposed Coastal Hazards Plan Change, consideration has been given to the key issues and options. These are set out in the attached papers. These will form part of the consultation package providing an overview of the analysis undertaken.

Option not to carry out public engagement

4.4       On 7 October 2021, the Council approved a three stage approach to community engagement, comprising the Issues & Options paper, a draft Plan Change and the Notified Plan Change (21/535428 - UDATC/2021/00018).

4.5       The Coastal Hazards Plan Change could be developed by Council without soliciting community feedback.  However, this would present the following risks:

4.5.1   Lack of community buy-in for the Council’s proposed approach.

4.5.2   An absence of testing of the approach could result in issues being raised in the formal stage of the plan change, adding costs to the process for Council, stakeholders, and the community, even where changes may be appropriate.

5.   Detail Te Whakamahuki

Engagement to date

5.1       Extensive community engagement took place on an Issues and Options Discussion Paper[3]  during the period October – December 2021. This was conducted alongside engagement on the Coastal Adaptation Framework[4] to enable a more comprehensive and joined-up, city-wide discussion on Coastal Hazards. As part of the engagement, views were sought and obtained from Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.

5.2       A total of 55 submissions and 35 form submissions (or pro-formas) were received on the issues and options paper, covering a range of topics.

5.3       A consultation report setting out the themes and issues raised in response to the Issues and Options paper for the plan change is attached to this report. Consideration has been given to the submissions received and responses are included within the consultation report.

5.4       The CHWG heard deputations from 11 submitters on 4 February 2022. Having considered the summary of submissions at its meeting on 17 February 2022, the Coastal Hazards Working Group endorsed the ‘Risk Based’ approach, which:

… involves managing activities according to the level of risk in that location, acknowledging the uncertainty (of when land may be affected by rising sea levels) and the vulnerability of the activity to risk. It reflects the approach taken to other hazards in the District Plan, and is consistent with international risk management best practice. It recognises that the level of risk is not the same in every location and that a range of restrictions should therefore apply to reflect the circumstances in different areas.[5]

5.5       The consultation report will form part of the package of material for community engagement on the draft Plan Change.

5.6       Responses from the engagement have been taken into consideration in determining how best to develop plan provisions.

Proposed approach to the Plan Change   

5.7       Technical assessments have been undertaken to develop a better understanding of coastal hazards and the different levels of risk for coastal inundation and erosion. These include the Coastal Hazards Assessment 2021 (T+T) and the Risk Based Coastal Hazard Analysis for Land-use Planning report 2021 (Jacobs). This has enabled the risk profiles to be mapped, and plan provisions developed to correspond to the level of risk. The effects of rising groundwater and tsunami have also been considered.

5.8       The Risk Based approach provides a balance between managing the effects of Coastal Hazards and enabling communities to meet their reasonably foreseeable needs.

5.9       The draft Plan Change attached to this report includes new Objectives, Policies and Rules to better manage subdivision, development and land use in areas of potential coastal hazards.  This will help to ensure that people, property, infrastructure and the environment are not exposed to increased risk of social, environmental and economic harm.

5.10    With the introduction of new coastal hazards provisions, it will be possible to remove some of the District Plan’s existing methods and the legacy provisions that only provide limited controls in the affected areas. This will help to simplify the Plan and contribute to its operational efficiency and effectiveness.

Planned engagement  

5.11    It is proposed that engagement on this draft plan change is carried out at the same time as the broader suite of plan changes related to growth and land use (including the intensification provisions) that are required to give effect to the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) and the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021. These plan changes are the subject of another report to the 31 March 2022 Urban Development & Transport Committee, and it is our intention that the planned engagement is progressed as a package. 

5.12    Engagement on the draft Coastal Hazards plan change will help develop the preferred approach, and will ensure the community has a further opportunity to shape how coastal hazards are managed prior to formal notification of the plan change.

6.   Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1       This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2021 - 2031):

6.1.1   Activity: Strategic Planning, Future Development and Regeneration

·     Level of Service: 9.5.1.1 Guidance on where and how the city grows through the District Plan. - Maintain operative District Plan, including monitoring outcomes to inform changes, and giving effect to national and regional policy statements.

6.2       This report is also aligned with the Council’s Strategic Priorities, specifically ‘Meeting the challenge of climate change through every means available’. 

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.3       This report is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.  The Coastal Hazards Plan Change falls under Programmes 2 and 3 of Kia tūroa te Ao |  Ōtautahi Christchurch Climate Resilience Strategy[6]:

·        Programme 2: Understanding the local effects of climate change

·        Programme 3: Proactive climate planning with communities.   

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.4       The decision to undertake pre-notification engagement on the draft Plan Change does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value. Notwithstanding this, the Plan Change will be significant to Mana Whenua, and we have engaged with runanga on the Issues and Options paper and will continue to do so through the development of the draft Plan Change.  

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.5       The primary purpose of this is Plan Change is to enable the Council and its communities to plan for the impacts of climate change. 

6.6       As above, this report and the Plan Change is consistent with the Kia tūroa te Ao |  Ōtautahi Christchurch Climate Resilience Strategy. It is also consistent with the Council’s declaration of a Climate Emergency in 2019.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.7       We are aware of the need to engage a wide range of communities through our pre-notification engagement on the draft Plan. 

7.   Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1       Cost to Implement – The cost of carrying out pre-notification engagement on the draft Plan Change can be met from operational budgets.  By bringing together the different plan changes as one suite for public engagement, we will find efficiencies in the costs. 

7.2       Maintenance/Ongoing costs – There will be limited ongoing costs that are directly attributable to the decision to undertake pre-notification engagement. There will be further costs associated with the notification of the Plan Change and the subsequent Hearings Process. Again, by joining up this process with the NPS-UD related plan changes, we will find cost efficiencies. 

7.3       Funding Source - Funding for our programme of Plan Changes has been sought through the Annual Plan 2022/23. 

8.   Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

Statutory power to undertake proposals in the report Te Manatū Whakahaere Kaupapa

8.1       The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) sets out the legal requirements for preparing and changing a District Plan (S73). Section 74 requires that a territorial authority must prepare and change its district plan in accordance with the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement, amongst other things. Section 75 requires that a district plan must give effect to the New Zealand coastal policy statement; and regional policy statement, amongst other higher order documents.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.2       The RMA requires the Council to review its District Plan each 10 years (s79). The Order in Council that separated out the coastal hazards plan change from the rest of the District Plan Review required the Council to commence a review of the coastal hazard provisions under the standard RMA process “as soon as reasonably practicable” (cl.5A(2) of the Order in Council). It is consistent with that requirement to avoid any unnecessary delay in proceeding with the plan change.

8.3       The Legal Services Unit has reviewed this report. 

9.   Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1       The proposed engagement is the latest round of engagement in an ongoing conversation with our community about how we can plan for climate change impacts.  This provides an opportunity for the community to provide their feedback and to inform the direction of the plan change. Notwithstanding this, there is a risk that the community do not consider they have had sufficient opportunity to participate. 

9.2       Technical work is still ongoing to assess and interpret the latest hazard and climate change data, including in relation to points raised in submissions on the Issues and Options paper. Updates and refinement to the risk area mapping will not be available for the draft plan change, but will be completed before the Notified Plan Change is completed. The draft plan change documentation has made clear the limitations of the current data and the intention to improve this prior to notification.

9.3       Coastal hazards represent one of the qualifying matters that can apply limitations to intensification. It is important that the linkages between these two plan changes are identified and that a co-ordinated approach is developed. If the Coastal Hazards plan change is not progressed at the same time as the plan change to give effect to the NPS-UD and the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply) Act there is a risk of development occurring in location that are not suitable for intensification and without adequate controls.

 

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

PC12 Coastal Hazards - Plan Change 12 - March 2022 (Under Separate Cover)

 

b

PC12 Coastal Hazards - Issues Table - March 2022 (Under Separate Cover)

 

c

PC12 Coastal Hazards - Evaluation of Options Table - March 2022 (Under Separate Cover)

 

d

PC12 Coastal Hazards - Issues and Options Paper Consultation Report (Under Separate Cover)

 

 

 

Additional background information may be noted in the below table:

Document Name

Location / File Link

Coastal Hazards Issues & Options discussion paper

https://ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/The-Council/Plans-Strategies-Policies-Bylaws/Plans/district-plan/Proposed-changes/2021/PC12-Coastal-Hazards/Coastal-Hazards-Plan-Change-Issues-and-Options-Discussion-Paper.pdf

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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 Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Jasmine Mouat - Senior Policy Analyst

Mark Rushworth - Principal Advisor Planning

Mark Stevenson - Team Leader City Planning

Adair Bruorton - Programme Manager

Brittany Ratka - Policy Planner

Approved By

Brent Pizzey - Senior Legal Counsel

Mark Stevenson - Team Leader City Planning

John Higgins - Head of Planning & Consents

Jane Davis - General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

  


Urban Development and Transport Committee

31 March 2022

 

 

9.     Plan Change 4 - Short-term Accommodation

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

22/289273

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Abby Stowell, Policy Planner, abby.stowell@ccc.govt.nz
Mark Stevenson, Manager - Planning, Mark.Stevenson@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

Jane Davis, General Manager Infrastructure, Planning and Regulatory Services jane.davis@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Purpose of the Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is to present the Hearings Panel’s recommendations following a hearing of submissions on Plan Change 4 (Short-term Accommodation) and to recommend the Council adopts the recommendations as its decision on Plan Change 4.

1.2       The decision in this report is of medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  The level of significance has been determined as medium on the basis of:

a.    The plan change gives effect to the objectives and policies of the District Plan, the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement and the National Policy Statement on Urban Development;

b.    The nature of the effects anticipated and the degree of risk (i.e. concerning primarily amenity and residential coherence impacts);

c.    The large number of affected parties, including residential property owners across the District;

d.    The degree of change in the regulatory approach compared with the current District Plan; and

e.    The impact of the preferred option (such as regulatory costs) on stakeholders including mana whenua.

 

 

2.   Officer Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Urban Development and Transport Committee:

1.         Receives the report and recommendations of the Hearings Panel on Plan Change 4 Short-term Accommodation;

2.         Accepts, accepts in part or rejects the submissions on PC4 as recommended by the Hearings Panel and attached to their report for the reasons set out in the Hearing Panel’s report in Attachment 1.

3.         Adopts, as the decision of the Council, the recommendations of the Hearings Panel that Plan Change 4 (Short-term Accommodation) be approved as per the Hearing Panel’s report as Attachment 1, under clause 10 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

 


 

3.   Reason for Report Recommendations / Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1       Plan Change 4 seeks to amend the District Plan to better manage the effects of the increasing number of residential units used as visitor accommodation in rural and residential zones. As it stands, the District Plan provides a limited framework for Council to approve visitor accommodation, even when adverse environmental effects are shown to be less than minor. There are barriers and difficulties for obtaining resource consent under the existing District Plan and decisions of the Council and Environment Court have questioned the appropriateness of the provisions.

3.2       Council initiated the proposed plan change in recognition that the current District Plan provisions are not the most effective and efficient way to achieve the objectives of the District Plan, higher order documents such as the Regional Policy Statement, or the purpose of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) which is the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

3.3       The staff recommendation to adopt the recommendations of Commissioners Sarah Dawson, Lindsay Daysh and Gary Rae (Referred to hereafter as ‘Hearings Panel’ or ‘Panel’) on proposed plan change 4. This has regard to the statutory process that the plan change has been through to this point and the Panel’s consideration of the submissions and evidence received by the Hearings Panel.

3.4       The Hearings Panel have determined that the proposed plan change is the most appropriate response to address the issues associated with short-term accommodation, with amendments as outlined below.

Summary of Key Changes Reccomended by the Hearings Panel

3.5       The Panel has not recommended significant changes from what was recommended by Council’s planner. The key changes are as follows, with reasons for the changes described on the next page -

3.6       Check-in/ check-out times

3.7       The Panel have recommended that standards prescribing limits on check-in times for hosted and unhosted visitor accommodation are deleted as marked below:
Check-in times shall not be between the hours of 22:00pm to 06:00am.

3.8       For visitor accommodation in a residential unit that is a controlled activity (Resource consent must be granted subject to conditions e.g. unhosted visitor accommodation for less than 60 days per year; visitor accommodation in a heritage item), a matter of control has been added to provide control on check-in and check-out times:
Controls on check-in and check-out times.

3.9       For visitor accommodation in a residential unit that is permitted (hosted accommodation in residential zones and in heritage items), the Panel recommends an additional standard as follows -
The owner of the unit shall have procedures in place for managing adverse effects on neighbours from guests checking-in between the hours of 22.00pm and 06.00am, and shall provide those procedures to the Council on request.

 

3.10    Residential character, coherence and amenity

3.11    The Panel have proposed changes to Policy 14.2.9.1 regarding residential character, coherence and effects on amenity as marked below:

 

14.2.9.1 Policy – Visitor Accommodation in Residential Units

a.    Permit visitor accommodation in a residential unit where:

i.      at least one permanent resident of the site is in residence for the duration of the stay;

ii.     the number of visitors, is comparable to use by a residential household; and

iii.    disturbance to neighbours is minimal; and

iv.   information on letting activity is recorded and provided to the Council on request.

b.    Manage visitor accommodation in a residential unit where a permanent resident is not in residence to ensure adverse effects on the residential character, coherence and amenity of the site and its immediate surroundings are minimised including through:

i.      controlling the scale, and extent of use to ensure that the residential unit is still predominantly used for residential activity;

ii.     management of operations to minimise disturbance of neighbours, including providing contact and site management information to guests and neighbours;

iii.   each residential block retaining a high proportion of residential activities, and each residential activity retaining a high proportion of residential neighbours.

iv.   ensuring residential units on adjoining sites, including sites separated by an access, still share a boundary with one or more residential activities, and do not have unhosted visitor accommodation on all their adjoining boundaries; and

v.    not locating unhosted visitor accommodation in a residential block where more than half of the residential units within the block are used for unhosted visitor accommodation.

c.     Avoid visitor accommodation in a residential unit at a scale or extent that is inconsistent with:

i.      retaining predominantly residential character and coherence (see 14.2.9.1(b)(iii and iv)), and maintaining or enhancing the amenity of the site and its immediate surroundings; or

ii.     minimising adverse effects on the amenity of the site and its immediate surroundings, including minimising the disturbance of neighbours; or

iii.    protecting strategic infrastructure from reverse sensitivity effects.

 

Reasons for Recommending Proposed Plan Changes

3.12    The Panel report (Attachment 1) notes that a number of submitters were concerned that the limits on check-in times would potentially discriminate against travellers arriving on later flights from being able to access pre-booked accommodation.

3.13    The Panel considers that there was much concern around good practice for managing late night arrivals.  Having check-in and check-out times as a matter of control rather than a standard for a controlled activity should enable an assessment of the adequacy of such procedures.

3.14    Removing the limit on check-in hours would remove the requirement for permitted activities to manage disturbance to neighbours from visitors checking in.  The Panel therefore recommends that an alternative standard for permitted activities be introduced, requiring procedures in place to manage adverse effects of late night check-ins.  These procedures would be provided to Council upon request.

3.15    Separate from the above, the Panel consider that specific policy guidance is required for managing cumulative effects on residential coherence. While it was addressed by Policy 14.2.1.9.b as recommended by Council’s planner, the proposed wording was considered by the Panel to be too specific for a policy.  They recommended the changes in paragraph 3.11 to provide the same direction but with less specificity.

3.16    The recommended changes to clauses (b) and (c) of 14.2.1.9 are designed to make the clauses more consistent and appropriate.

Panel Conclusions on Council’s Recommendations

3.17    The Panel is satisfied that express provisions to manage effects from visitor accommodation are required[7]. They agree that the proposed changes will provide the appropriate balance between enabling the activity, whilst appropriately managing the effects[8].

3.18    The Panel agrees with Council’s position that the use of residential dwellings for visitor accommodation provides a range of potential benefits, including more efficient use of housing stock, providing income for property owners, and increased choice for visitors/tourists[9]. Notwithstanding this, the Panel concurs with the Council’s view that the activity can give rise to adverse effects, with reliance on evidence from Council and submitters including “the subjective views and experience of residents about adverse effects[10].

3.19    The Panel acknowledges that some providers of visitor accommodation do have their own systems to regulate adverse effects from their activities, but this is limited and the submissions suggest that it is only partially successful[11]. Therefore, the Panel believe it appropriate for Council to manage the effects via controls in the District Plan[12].

3.20    The Panel also accepts the Council’s evidence that hosted visitor accommodation has less potential for significant adverse effects on residential areas than unhosted accommodation.  Therefore, this type of accommodation should be differentiated in policy and activity status.

3.21    The Panel accepts the Council’s submission that the characteristics and effects of visitor accommodation can be reduced to be the same or similar to those of residential activities where the activity is at a smaller scale and frequency[13]. They accept the evidence that the starting point for resource consent in residential zones should be controlled activity status for unhosted visitor accommodation for up to 60 nights per year, recognising that it cannot be appropriately managed as a permitted activity[14]. At this frequency of use (two months per year), it is the Panel’s conclusion that the predominant activity on site remains residential, reducing the likelihood that the neighbours may experience disturbance[15].

3.22    They further accept the Council’s submission that discretionary status is appropriate when the standards for a controlled activity are not met, so that longer periods of time can be considered on their merits and assessed[16]. On this particular matter, there was some consideration by the Panel as to whether non-compliance with permitted and controlled activity standards should be a restricted discretionary or discretionary activity, the Panel agreeing with Council’s planner that the latter is the more appropriate. The Panel recognises that there is potential for unhosted visitor accommodation to have significant adverse effects on residential coherence, character and amenity and should therefore require specific consideration through a discretionary consent process[17].

3.23    The Panel agrees with Council that non-complying status is only appropriate where the maximum number of guests for an activity is exceeded[18].  This is unlike the notified proposal which proposed non-complying activity status for unhosted visitor accommodation in a residential unit for more than 180 days per year. For such activities, a site specific assessment can be made as to whether an individual proposal has policy support in terms of its effects on the site and surrounding activities.

3.24    The Panel agrees with Council’s planner that economic evidence did not provide a basis for managing effect on housing supply and revitalisation of the central city and therefore references to this in Policy 14.2.9.1 (c) as notified should be removed[19].

3.25    With regard to most “ordinary” visitor accommodation generally i.e. hotels, motels, the Council’s planner recommended a change in activity status from Discretionary to Non-complying in residential zones.  As there were no submissions opposing these provisions, the Panel was not in a position to recommend any changes.  The Panel therefore accepts the Council’s recommendation but did note that the explanation for PC4 is vague on this matter and does not include any clear statement that the provisions for “ordinary” visitor accommodation in Residential Zones are proposed to be changed[20].

 

4.   Alternative Options Considered / Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1       The Council can adopt the Panel’s recommendation as its own decision, but the adoption must be of the recommendations in their entirety.

4.2       The Council cannot reject a recommendation outright or substitute its own decision as it has not heard the submissions and evidence. Legal advice is that natural justice principles would be infringed if the Council were to make a decision on the plan change that differs from the recommendation given by the Panel unless the Council gave the submitter the right to be heard when the Council reconsiders the proposed plan change.

4.3       Accordingly, the options available to the Council, if it does not wish to adopt the Panel’s recommendation as its decision, are to:

a.    Refer the plan change back to the Panel with a direction that they reconsider their recommendation, and then adopt the subsequent recommendation of the Panel – which may be unchanged from the current recommendation. If the Council wishes to refer the matter back to the Panel, it must be satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for doing so. For example, if an issue the plan change is seeking to address has been overlooked. Those grounds do not exist here.

b.    Appoint different commissioners or for Council to consider the plan change and supporting reports itself, ensuring that the new decision makers hear from the submitters.

c.    Withdraw the plan change.

 


 

5.   Detail / Te Whakamahuki

Plan Change Amendments and Background

Submissions and Hearing

5.1       The proposed plan change was publicly notified on 24 September 2020.  133 submissions were received requesting 518 separate decisions.  A further 18 submissions were then received supporting or opposing decisions requested in the first round of submissions.

5.2       Submissions were received from a range of stakeholders. AirBnB, other online platforms and hosts generally sought a more permissive approach while the hospitality sector (including the operators/ owners/ managers of hotels and motels) sought enforcement of the status quo and in some cases, a more restrictive set of rules. In addition, there were submissions from residents and groups representing residents who were concerned about the impacts the activity has on their neighbourhoods with a position that commercial activity is being allowed to occur without appropriate controls. A summary of the Panel’s recommendations on submissions received is attached to this report.

5.3       Council appointed a hearings panel to hear the submissions. The hearing was originally scheduled to occur in May 2021 but was rescheduled to October 2021 to enable Council to prepare additional economic evidence.

Panel’s Recommendation

5.4       The Panel’s recommendation is to adopt PC4 as set out in Attachment 1 (summarised in Section 3 above); and to accept, accept in part or reject the submissions on PC4 as appended to their report.

 

6.   Policy Framework Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa

National Policy Statement on Urban Development

6.1       The National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPSUD) was gazetted in 2020 subsequent to the review of the District Plan by the Independent Hearings Panel several years prior, which means that the District Plan has not captured all the elements of that document[21].

6.2       The Panel found that the NPSUD does not provide specific direction requiring PC4 to restrict short-term accommodation for housing or business capacity reasons[22]. The NPSUD requires provisions such as those in the PC4 not to prevent diversification, intensification and changes of land use and activities in urban areas unnecessarily, where those activities have discernible benefits that are consistent with well-functioning environments[23]

6.3       The Panel points out that changes in amenity value do not represent adverse effects in their own right and therefore provisions such as PC 4 should not prevent diversification, intensification and changes of land use and activities in urban areas unnecessarily but at the same time, the NPSUD does not implicitly support allowing degradation of amenity values[24].  The Panel agreed with Council that this is not the case with PC4.

National Planning Standards

6.4       PC4 is consistent with the National Planning Standards’ definition of visitor accommodation. 

Canterbury Regional Policy Statement

6.5       The CRPS does not address the issue of visitor accommodation in residential units specifically. Notwithstanding this, the Panel note the relevance of the objectives and policies that direct commercial activities into commercial centres, where visitor accommodation in residential areas is of a scale, nature or predominance to become a ‘commercial activity’[25].  

Strategic Alignment /Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.6       The Panel’s recommendations align with the Council’s Community Outcomes and Strategic Priorities including:

6.7       Resilient Communities – Strong sense of community and safe and healthy communities

a.    By continuing to seek that the primary use of residential unit remains a residential activity, Proposed Plan Change 4 manages impacts on residential coherence and supports outcomes including strong social networks and people feeling safe in their homes and neighbourhoods.

6.8       Liveable City – Vibrant thriving central city, suburban and rural centres and a sufficient supply and access to a range of housing

a.    Attracting more visitors to the District will increase the vibrancy and diversity of the Central City and commercial centres.

b.    The proposed changes are unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on housing supply or affordability in the District. 

6.9       Healthy Environment – A sustainable use of resources and minimising waste

a.    Providing for the more flexible and efficient use of existing housing reduces the requirement for additional purpose-built accommodation and the associated material and energy costs.

6.10    A Prosperous Economy – A great place for people, business and investment and an equitable economy with broad-based prosperity

a.    In supporting a larger number of overall visitors to the District, Proposed Plan Change 4 supports the economic growth of the District.

b.    The decision on the proposed plan change cannot consider trade competition effects on the formal accommodation sector

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

6.11.1 Activity: Strategic Planning and Policy

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

6.12    Proposed Plan Change 4 enables the District Plan to respond to issues arising in respect of home-share accommodation and other forms of short-term accommodation (e.g. serviced apartments and home exchanges). In doing so, the District Plan provides clear guidance on how short-term accommodation is managed.

Policy Consistency / Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.13    The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies as discussed above.

Impact on Mana Whenua / Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.14    The decision does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value.

6.15    Consultation was undertaken with Mahaanui Kurataiao in the preparation of the Plan Change including changes to the provisions for the Rural Banks Peninsula zone that apply to non-Māori land in the Papakāinga / Kāinga Nohoanga Zone and provisions for Māori land in the Papakāinga / Kāinga Nohoanga Zone.

Climate Change Impact Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.16    Proposed Plan Change 4 would enable a more efficient use of the existing housing stock, reducing the energy and material costs of building additional structures.

6.17    While the dispersed locations of home-share accommodation across the District may increase dependence on private vehicle travel, this is unlikely to be a significant impact in terms of increased emissions compared with the residential use of those properties.

Accessibility Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.18    Access to visitor accommodation for people with disabilities is primarily managed through the Building Act 2004 and the building code.

6.19    The District Plan requires mobility parking for non-residential activities, consistent with the Building Act. The Plan Change includes amendments to the transport provisions of the District Plan, enabling the consideration of provision for mobility parking as part of an application for a resource consent.

7.   Resource Implications / Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1       Adopting the proposed plan change will not result in additional costs to Council beyond what has been budgeted for except for additional costs associated with monitoring and enforcement.

7.2       The costs of staff time on Proposed Plan Change 4 have been assumed in the budgets of the Planning and Strategic Transport unit as part of the Annual Plan and Long Term Plan.

7.3       The Council have different options for monitoring compliance with the new provisions. A reactive approach to complaints has been taken for short term guest accommodation while the plan change process is in progress and there are effectively two options available, being as follows:

a.    Continuation of a reactive approach, relying on existing resourcing.

b.    Taking a proactive enforcement approach in implementation of the proposed plan change, which has been estimated to require an additional three full-time equivalent (FTE) staff.

7.4       Requirements for hosts to provide information to the Council on an annual basis will increase costs to maintain a database but these costs are unlikely to be significant and would reduce if a national registration system was introduced. However, overall there will be some increase in costs for Council as it will be time consuming to identify properties where the information is not supplied on a voluntary basis.

7.5       Funding for additional enforcement resourcing is a decision for elected members to make through the Annual Plan and Long Term Plan processes and is subject to a separate consultation process. The compliance, monitoring and enforcement approach will be contingent on the decision on funding/ resourcing.

 

8.   Legal Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

Statutory power to undertake proposals in the report / Te Manatū Whakahaere Kaupapa

8.1       Sections 74 and 75 of the RMA set out the Council's obligations when preparing a change to its District Plan. The Panel’s report has applied the appropriate considerations under the RMA.

8.2       The legal framework for the Council’s decision on the Panel’s recommendations is set out in Part 4 above.

8.3       Submitters have the right to appeal to the Environment Court against the Council’s decision on PC4.

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.4       This report has been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit.

 

9.   Risk Management Implications / Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

Risk of acting or not acting

9.1       Implementing Proposed Plan Change 4 reduces the reputational risk to the Council of taking enforcement action against visitor accommodation activity that is in breach of the current District Plan rules where it has acknowledged that the evidence does not support the stringency of the current consenting requirements.

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

PC4 Findings of Hearings Panel (Under Separate Cover)

 

 

 

In addition to the attached documents, the following background information is available:

Document Name

Location / File Link

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance / Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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 / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Mark Stevenson - Manager Planning

Abby Stowell - Policy Planner

Approved By

John Higgins - Head of Planning & Consents

Jane Davis - General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

  


Urban Development and Transport Committee

31 March 2022

 

 

10.   Transport Report to Urban Development and Transport Committee

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

22/302561

Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Lynette Ellis, Head of Transport, lynette.ellis@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

Jane Davis, General Manager Infrastructure, Planning and Regulatory Services, jane.davis@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Brief Summary

1.1       The purpose of this report is to update the Urban Development and Transport committee on projects and information important to the successful delivery of the transport portfolio.  The report is staff generated

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Urban Development and Transport Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the Transport Report for March 2022.

 

3.   Update

3.1       The Transport Report for March 2021 (Attachment A) covers the following topics:

3.1.1   Lincoln Road bus lanes (stage one)

3.1.2   Linwood (Eastgate Mall) Public Transport Hub update

3.1.3   Request for Service (RFS) process for footpaths

3.1.4   Parking update

3.1.5   Bus stops and shelters

3.1.6   Trees update

3.2       This report is to discuss the detail of why transport projects are undertaken and issues that the Transport Unit are addressing.

3.3       The detail of progress (both time and cost) for individual projects is covered in the Capital Progress report for the Finance and Performance Committee.

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Transport Report to Urban Development Transport Committee

43

b

RFS Process - Footpaths

55

 

 

In addition to the attached documents, the following background information is available:

Not applicable

 

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance / Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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 / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Approved By

Jane Davis - General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

  


Urban Development and Transport Committee

31 March 2022

 













Urban Development and Transport Committee

31 March 2022

 


Urban Development and Transport Committee

31 March 2022

 

 

11.   Planning and Consents Report - January and February 2022

Reference Te Tohutoro:

22/146181

Report of Te Pou Matua:

John Higgins, Head of Planning and Consents, john.higgins@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

Jane Davis, General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services, jane.davis@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Brief Summary

1.1       The purpose of this report is to provide an update to the Urban Development & Transport Committee with respect to delivery of the Planning and Consents Unit functions.   This report covers January and February 2022.

1.2       The Committee will continue to receive other reports from the Unit relating to specific topics that necessitate standalone reports. 

 

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Urban Development and Transport Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the Planning and Consents Report – January and February 2022.

 

3.   Resource Management Act Reform update, Urban Design and Heritage

3.1       The Ministry for the Environment is carrying out further, targeted stakeholder consultation on the Resource Management reforms, with a list of 33 questions posed to councils and iwi late last year. The questions relate to matters that will be included in the Natural and Built Environments Act, and focus on the national planning framework and hierarchy of plans, respective roles, representation and responsibilities, and involvement of mana whenua.  

3.2       Staff are working on responses to the questions (most of which cover matters already submitted on the legislation’s exposure draft), which will come to the Council as a draft submission in February.

3.3       The Canterbury Mayoral Forum (CMF) is also preparing a draft submission on the targeted consultation questions. The Council is taking a leadership role in the preparation of the CMF’s submission. 

4.   Planning and Strategic Transport

4.1       Since the District Plan was made operative in 2017, there have been a number of issues identified that need to be addressed to ensure the District Plan is fit for purpose and achieving what is anticipated. Through prioritising of these issues, a programme of Council led plan changes has been defined. The following provide an update on the current status of each plan change:

4.1.1   Plan change 4 (Short term accommodation): Commissioners recommendations will be reported to Urban Development and Transport Committee for approval.

4.1.2   Plan change 5 (Package of topics): The Council filed its closing right of reply on 25 February. The Hearing remains open until the Commissioners are satisfied with the information received.

4.1.3   Plan change 6 (Homebase extension): Commissioners recommendations will be reported to Urban Development and Transport Committee for approval.

4.1.4   Plan change 8 (Papakāinga/Kāinga Nohoanga zone): Operative

4.1.5   Plan Change 12 (Coastal Hazards): A report is on the agenda, seeking approval for pre-notification engagement.

4.1.6   Plan Change 13 (Heritage): A report on the intensification plan change (see below), seeks approval for pre-notification engagement.

4.1.7   Plan Change 14 (Intensification): A report is on the agenda, seeking approval for pre-notification engagement.

4.2       Strategic Transport are progressing the Christchurch Transport Plan. A first draft is now complete and was distributed to elected members at a briefing on 8 March 2022. A second briefing will occur on 15 March 2022 and a decision to consult will be made by Council on 7 April 2022.

5.   Resource Consents

5.1       A total of 161 applications were received in January and 324 applications in February.  Attachment A contains further information showing a range of statistics relating to resource consent processing.

5.2       There remains a backlog of unallocated consents to be processed resulting from continued high workloads in 2021. Workloads are also being driven by the complexity profile of applications.  The implication is that applications take more time to process.

5.3       As a result of high workloads, processing non-notified applications within the statutory timeframes was 53% (84% Year to Date) in January and 70% (82% Year to Date) in February. The target is 99%.  The result was lower in January due to a pre-Christmas surge and a greater level of annual leave taken during the month.

5.4       A number of strategies are being employed to address the high workloads, such as recruitment, use of consultants, and streamlining processes.  However, there have been limitations to the extent these strategies have been effective.  For example, consultants have very limited capacity due to their own high workloads and are only accepting relatively small numbers of applications (1.5% of applications).

5.5       While we do expect compliance with the statutory timeframes to deteriorate further in the short term, we are working hard to improve the situation.   Recruitment is ongoing and we are in discussion with consultancies to increase the amount of applications they can take.  We also continue to work on other options, particularly streamlining processes so that applications can be processed quicker.    

5.6       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. 89% of respondents year to date were satisfied with the service.

5.7       We continue to see high interest in multi-unit complexes and social housing complexes.   These applications necessitate a lot of staff time meeting with neighbours and responding to queries.  The list of key applications for January and February is attached for your reference.

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Resource Consents - Graphical Information

60

b

Key applications of interest - January and February 2022

72

 

 

Additional background information may be noted in the below table:

Document Name

Location / File Link

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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 Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

John Higgins - Head of Planning & Consents

Approved By

Jane Davis - General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

  


Urban Development and Transport Committee

31 March 2022

 













Urban Development and Transport Committee

31 March 2022

 





Urban Development and Transport Committee

31 March 2022

 

 

12.   Regulatory Services - Building Consenting Unit Report - January and February 2022

Reference Te Tohutoro:

22/245603

Report of Te Pou Matua:

Robert Wright Head of Building Consenting – robert.wright@ccc.govt.nz

General Manager Pouwhakarae:

Jane Davis – General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services – jane.davis@ccc.govt.nz

 

 

1.   Brief Summary

1.1       The purpose of this report is to provide an update to the Urban Development and Transport Committee with respect to the delivery of Building Act functions performed within the Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services Group for the period January and February 2022.

 

Attachment A provides detailed reporting matrix for the six months ending February 2022.

 

2.   Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Urban Development and Transport Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the Regulatory Services Building Consenting Update Report – January and February 2022.

3.   Building Consenting Unit

3.1         Key Performance Indicators

Measure:

 

Dec

Jan

Feb

YTD

 

Building Consents Granted:

KPI

26.9%

34.4%

38.9%

37.0%

95% within 19 working days

 

STF

28.2%

36.8%

41.4%

38.9%

20 working days

Inspections:

KPI

98.0%

99.7%

88.8%

97.2%

98% booked within 3 working days

Code Compliance Certificates:

KPI

77.7%

91.8%

93.1%

87.2%

95% within 19 working days

 

STF

87.3%

94.5%

94.4%

94.9%

20 working days

PIM Only:

KPI

95%

96%

90.0%

95.1%

PIM only 90% within 20 working days

PIM/Devt Check:

STF

98%

95%

89%

97.1%

Within 20 working days

Discretionary Exemptions:

KPI

97%

100%

99%

98.97%

10 working days

Customer Satisfaction:

KPI

78.4%

80.9%

77.18%

80.44%

Target is 75%

  

KPI = Key Performance Indicator 

STF = Statutory Time Frame

 

3.2         Number of New Dwellings Consented

At a national level, consents for new homes dipped in January 22, with Christchurch following that trend.

 

The number of new homes consented is still the second highest for a January month in 57 years (the highest being January 2021). Typically, January is a lower month given public holidays and annual leave.

 

For the year ended January 2022, record numbers of new homes have been consented nationally (48,707), up 22% on the previous period. The Canterbury region recorded record numbers with 7817 new homes, up 34%, the highest number of new homes consented for any 12 month period since the Stats NZ reporting series began.

 

The table below show our part in this record breaking period of new home construction, with the year ended January 2022 up 35% from 2021 (up 43.9% and 73.5% from 2020 and 2019 respectively).

 

 

Number of New Dwelling Consented -  Source Stats NZ

 

Year Ended January

Month

District or City Council

2019

2020

2021

2022

Jan-22

Dec-21

Nov-21

Oct-21

Sep-21

Aug-21

Jul-21

Jun-21

May-21

Apr-21

Mar-21

Feb-21

Jan-21

Christchurch

2327

2805

2974

4038

270

424

367

366

398

360

340

312

339

344

323

195

237

Selwyn

1050

1334

1712

1945

128

90

134

205

167

208

199

159

188

159

189

121

109

Hamilton

1502

1679

1473

1580

60

138

146

98

135

160

137

134

192

82

135

163

121

Queenstown-Lakes

1071

1425

1102

1289

63

116

99

96

158

93

129

135

118

123

84

75

52

Tauranga

1423

1260

1448

1459

63

100

129

163

106

121

119

127

99

181

141

110

101

Waikato

690

873

972

1221

86

84

137

93

112

112

111

113

111

93

104

65

71

Whangarei

626

558

539

801

49

26

82

82

52

45

101

81

55

72

114

42

52

Waimakariri

721

638

541

919

66

85

55

52

74

64

72

87

87

84

101

92

42

Lower Hutt

494

630

691

1055

62

31

100

68

221

101

67

40

160

101

74

30

74

Wellington

1064

1450

1138

966

26

169

121

125

40

57

63

69

43

72

90

91

20

Napier

227

259

349

415

32

35

13

28

59

36

63

12

22

23

24

68

23

Dunedin

450

433

431

557

53

51

47

54

63

29

61

26

34

44

58

37

44

New Plymouth

384

492

558

710

34

44

55

63

53

59

53

49

55

98

97

50

32

Palmerston North

484

451

519

539

11

32

52

40

43

37

47

62

54

47

47

56

59

Hastings

326

424

558

559

19

53

35

26

111

47

45

36

43

31

60

53

40

Upper Hutt

305

194

272

350

31

37

56

57

22

24

20

31

27

13

20

12

27

Timaru

190

172

187

252

19

22

13

15

28

23

33

26

22

15

2

20

7

 

Includes apartments, retirement village units, townhouses, flats and units

 

 

 

 

 

3.3      Consent Applications Received

In terms of consenting volume, the table shows increases in all three areas of residential construction activity (Res 1, Res 2, Res 3), when compared to three previous periods.

Consent Applications Received

 

 


3.4      Value of Building Consent Application by Complexity

 

Similarly, the value of building work is significantly higher than previous comparative periods. Year to date has seen a 69% increase compared to the same period last year.

 

Building Consent Applications Received

 

Value of Building Consent Application by Complexity

Period

Total

Total Value

Com 1

Value

Com 2

Value

Com 3

Value

Res 1

Value

Res 2

Value

Res 3

Value

01/07/2021 - 28/02/2022

3710

$ 2,129,636,170

292

$ 172,306,897

163

$ 196,645,373

117

$ 437,978,121

1426

$ 255,829,719

839

$ 243,395,380

873

$ 823,480,682

01/07/2020- 28/02/2021

3269

$ 1,259,482,705

278

$ 167,611,539

148

$ 126,936,662

118

$ 239,394,164

1346

$ 198,632,028

707

$ 167,214,432

672

$ 359,693,880

01/07/2019 - 29/02/2020

3086

$ 1,155,455,981

265

$ 141,215,745

210

$ 183,824,741

160

$ 200,535,266

1231

$ 177,836,912

659

$ 154,780,510

561

$ 297,262,807

01/07/2018 - 28/02/2019

3152

$ 1,450,766,869

313

$ 175,179,650

229

$ 240,873,196

162

$ 431,105,950

1144

$ 143,086,221

699

$ 150,635,896

605

$ 309,885,955

 

 

Com 1

Com 2

Com 3

Res 1

Res 2

Res 3

Com 1

Com 2

Com 3

Res 1

Res 2

Res 3

 

 

01/07/2021 - 28/02/2022

$ 172,306,897

 $ 196,645,373

 $ 437,978,121

 $ 255,829,719

 $ 243,395,380

 $ 823,480,682

292

163

117

1426

839

873

 

 

01/07/2020- 28/02/2021

$ 167,611,539

 $ 126,936,662

 $ 239,394,164

 $ 198,632,028

 $ 167,214,432

 $ 359,693,880

278

148

118

1346

707

672

 

 

01/07/2019 - 29/02/2020

$ 141,215,745

 $ 183,824,741

 $ 200,535,266

 $ 177,836,912

 $ 154,780,510

 $ 297,262,807

265

210

160

1231

659

561

 

 

01/07/2018 - 28/02/2019

$ 175,179,650

 $ 240,873,196

 $ 431,105,950

 $ 143,086,221

 $ 150,635,896

 $ 309,885,955

313

229

162

1144

699

605

 

 

 

 

 

3.5         Consent Applications Received by Value

While good improvements have been made to statutory processing timeframes in January and February for commercial consents (45.7% up to 67.8%)

Residential consent processing has seen less progress (28.2% up to 41.4%).

 

Improving time frame remains the focus of the Unit at this time although record consent activity is placing significant pressure on our processing resource. Finding people to do this work either as an employee or contractor in the current market is proving challenging (along with the task of retaining staff in a very buoyant jobseekers market).

 

We will continue to explore every reasonable avenue including increased communication with applicants, continued recruitment and retention and outsourcing.

 

Consent Applications Received by Value

 

 

3.6      Significant Building Consents (January and February 2022)

 

Address

Value of Building Work

Building Consent Details

617 Colombo Street, Central City

$1,950,000

Alteration to ENT X Cinema and Entertainment Complex for new tenancy on the ground floor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.7      Eco –Design

The Eco Design Service focused on individual consultations for residential building, reaching 31 consultations in February.  We have carried out 215 of the 300 consultations required for the financial year.

The Eco Design Advisor undertook 7 site visits (advice on renovations), the rest of the consultations were made at the Council, 8 consultations for BCO’s, mainly on Alternative solutions, and Compliance path for H1 (energy efficiency) and E3 (internal moisture) and provided advice to some local architects and architectural designers, and in particular to Hierarchy architects, RBA studio, Walker architecture, Maiden group, Green homes NZ.

 

February was busy also, working with the University of Canterbury for their solar Decathlon 2022, this is an international competition (USA), on how to retrofit efficiently an existing home and meet the requirements of climate change.  Link to the design challenge:

https://www.solardecathlon.gov/event/challenges-design.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Residential Unit Performance Report February 2022

83

 

 

Additional background information may be noted in the below table:

Document Name

Location / File Link

 

 

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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 Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Robert Wright - Head of Building Consenting

Approved By

Jane Davis - General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

  


Urban Development and Transport Committee

31 March 2022

 


 

 



[1] Although the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021 sets out an alternative, Intensification Streamlined Planning Process for the Housing Choice Intensification Plan Change (PC15), the three other plan changes as part of this work programme would still need to follow a Schedule 1 Process.   

[2] Christchurch City Council, ‘Submission on the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 2021, November 2021’, available at https://ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/The-Council/Request-information/2021/Christchurch-City-Council-submission-on-the-Resource-Management-Enabling-Housing-Supply-and-Other-Matters-Amendment-Bill.pdf 

[3] Christchurch City Council, Coastal Hazards District Plan Change – issues and options discussion paper, available at https://ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/The-Council/Plans-Strategies-Policies-Bylaws/Plans/district-plan/Proposed-changes/2021/PC12-Coastal-Hazards/Coastal-Hazards-Plan-Change-Issues-and-Options-Discussion-Paper.pdf

[4] Christchurch City Council, Coastal Adaptation Framework, available at https://ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Consultation/2021/10-October/Coastal-Adaptation-Framework.pdf 

[5] Christchurch City Council, Coastal Hazards District Plan Change – Issues and options discussion paper, p. 9

[6] Christchurch City Counci, Kia tūroa te Ao |  Otautahi Christchurch Climate Resilience Strategy 2021, available at https://ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Environment/Climate-Change/Otautahi-Christchurch-Climate-Resilience-Strategy.pdf 

[7] Paragraph 207 of Panel’s report, Attachment 1

[8] Paragraph 291of Panel’s report, Attachment 1

[9] Paragraph 152 of Panel’s report, Attachment 1

[10] Paragraph 135 of Panel’s report, Attachment 1

[11] Paragraph 144 of Panel’s report, Attachment 1

[12] Paragraph 144 of Panel’s report, Attachment 1

[13] Paragraph 190 of Panel’s report, Attachment 1

[14] Paragraph 236 of Panel’s report, Attachment 1

[15] Paragraph 255 of Panel’s report, Attachment 1

[16] Paragraph 258 of Panel’s report, Attachment 1

[17] Paragraph 205 of Panel’s report, Attachment 1

[18] Paragraph 248 of Panel’s report, Attachment 1

[19] Paragraph 208 of Panel’s report, Attachment 1

[20] Paragraph 122 of Panel’s report, Attachment 1

[21] Paragraph 50 of Panel’s  report, Attachment A

[22] Paragraph 52 of Panel’s  report, Attachment A

[23] Paragraph 53 of Panel’s  report, Attachment A

[24] Paragraph 53 of Panel’s  report, Attachment A

[25] Paragraph 55 of Panel’s  report, Attachment A