|
Council
01 March 2023
|
|
|
17. Revoking
Council Resolutions from 8 September 2022 on Plan Change 14 and Plan Change
13
|
|
Reference / Te Tohutoro:
|
23/248676
|
|
Report of / Te Pou Matua:
|
Mark
Stevenson, Manager Planning; Brent Pizzey, Senior Legal Counsel
|
|
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:
|
Mary
Richardson, General Manager Citizens & Community
(Mary.Richardson@ccc.govt.nz)
|
1. Nature of Decision or Issue and Report Origin
1.1 Since the September 2022 decision of Council, staff have
developed an alternative Plan Change 14 for notification. A separate report
recommending that Council approve the public notification of the alternative
proposal is already on the agenda for consideration at this meeting on 1st
March.
1.2 Some provisions remain the same as recommended in the
earlier proposal in September 2022. Should the Council approve the notification
of the current set of provisions recommended by staff in the alternative Plan
Change 14, it will be necessary to revoke some resolutions made at the 8
September 2022 meeting.
1.3 The
decisions in this report are of high significance in relation to the
Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The
level of significance was determined by taking into account
the connection between these decisions and the overall impact of Plan Change 14
on the urban form of the City, including the central city, suburban centres and
residential areas.
2. Officer
Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu
That the Council:
1. Revoke Council resolution CNCL/2022/00118
made at the Council meeting on 8 September 2022 relating to Approval to Notify
Plan Changes 13 and 14
2. Revoke Council resolution CNCL/2022/00119
made at the Council meeting on 8 September 2022 relating to
Approval to Notify Plan Changes 13 and 14
3. Revoke Council resolution CNCL/2022/00120 made
at the Council meeting on 8 September 2022 relating to Approval to Notify
Plan Changes 13 and 14
4. Revoke Council resolution CNCL/2022/00121
made at the Council meeting on 8 September 2022 relating to Approval to
Notify Plan Changes 13 and 14
5. Revoke Council resolution CNCL/2022/00125
made at the Council meeting on 8 September 2022 relating to Approval to
Notify Plan Changes 13 and 14
3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te
Whakatau
3.1 The
previously elected Council considered a report seeking approval to notify Plan
Change 13 and Plan Change 14 at its 8 September 2022 meeting. Councillor
amendments were moved, and those carried resulted in a number of resolutions
relating to Plan Change 14. Some of these were requests that staff investigate
matters, and these have been actioned insofar as investigations have been made.
Other resolutions could not be actioned – or could not be supported by
staff - for various reasons.
3.2 Since
the September 2022 decision of Council, staff have developed an alternative
Plan Change 14 for notification. A separate report recommending that
Council approve the public notification of the alternative proposal is already
on the agenda for consideration at the meeting on 1st March.
3.3 In
that report, already circulated, officers recommend that Council approve the
complete set of provisions in Plan Change 14. The recommended provisions are
supported by an evaluation and available evidence. For this reason some provisions
remain the same as recommended in the earlier proposal in September 2022.
Should the Council approve the notification of the current set of provisions
recommended by staff in the alternative Plan Change 14, it will be necessary to
revoke some resolutions made at the 8 September 2022 meeting.
4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa
4.1 The
alternative options to the recommendations in this report would be for Council
to not revoke the resolutions, and to allow the previous resolutions to stand.
If the Council decides to approve notification of the alternative plan change
proposal, provisions within that proposal for notification may not reflect the
requests made of staff in some of the resolutions now recommended for
revocation.
4.2 This
could lead to confusion around a lack of reconciliation between the decisions
of the two elected Councils, with one decision contradicting another. Any
requirement to fulfil the requests made of staff in the 8th
September resolutions, would risk undermining the integrity of the plan change
being notified.
4.3 It
is possible that, when the Council considers whether to approve the alternative
Plan Change 14 for notification, it again decides to alter or amend certain
provisions in line with the 8th September meeting resolutions now
recommended for revocation. This would mean the existing resolutions from 8
September would not be revoked.
4.4 However,
both plan changes 13 and 14 are accompanied by detailed evaluation reports
prepared under s32 of the RMA, which include consideration of reasonably
practicable alternatives. Those evaluations assess the efficiency and
effectiveness of alternatives to the proposed provisions for the District Plan.
They conclude that the plan change provisions as recommended are the most
appropriate. Staff recommend against the Council notifying changes to
the District Plan that are unsupported by the evaluation required by the RMA.
5. Detail Te Whakamahuki
5.1 CNCL/2022/00118:
That the Council request staff to make any changes necessary to the Plan Change
14 provisions to require 25% tree canopy cover on residential sites rather than
20%. (Councillor Coker/Councillor Cotter. Councillors Keown and Mauger
requested their votes against the resolution be recorded.)
5.1.1 In
the alternative Plan Change 14, staff have proposed that 20% tree canopy cover
is required on any site. An increase to 25% cannot be supported by staff on the
basis that it necessitates more and/or larger trees that is greater than the
landscaped area required by MDRS and could have implications for service areas
and outdoor space, while also reducing sunlight and intruding on neighbouring
properties.
5.1.2 Staff
recommend this resolution is revoked following the Council decision to notify
the alternative Plan Change 14 proposal containing provisions requiring a tree
canopy cover of 20%.
5.2 CNCL/2022/00119:
That the Council request staff to make any changes to Plan Change 13
and Plan Change 14 to extend the Chester St East/Dawson St heritage area (HA2) to
include all properties with a Chester St East address east of the currently
proposed HA2 boundary. (Councillor McLellan/Councillor Cotter. Councillors
Donovan, Templeton, MacDonald and Davidson requested their votes against the
resolution be recorded.)
5.2.1 Staff
have investigated the extension of the heritage area but this has not been
recommended in the revised plan changes. Whilst acknowledging the importance of
the community appreciation of Chester Street East in its entirety, the
boundaries of the proposed residential heritage area (RHA) are robust and
defensible and extending the RHA the full length of the street would
substantially compromise the integrity and authenticity of the proposed RHA.
The RHA as it has been mapped meets the assessment criteria for scheduling as a
significant historic heritage resource and to extend the RHA to include the
eastern part of the street would undermine this finding.
5.2.2 Redevelopment
of the eastern end of Chester Street has compromised the authenticity and integrity
of the street in its entirety, giving rise to the boundaries of the RHA as they
have been identified. The eastern section of Chester St East has been subject
to intensified housing development since the early 1960s. Today there are a
large number of modern townhouses within this part of the street. The majority
of the properties in the section of Chester St East excluded from the RHA are
‘Neutral’ or ‘Intrusive’ in character.
5.2.3 Staff
therefore recommend this resolution is revoked following a Council decision to
notify the alternative Plan Change 14 proposal and the revised Plan Change 13
proposal.
5.3 CNCL/2022/00120:
That the Council request staff to amend Plan Change 14 provisions that enabled
building heights around the Victoria Street area (where a 45m City Centre Zone
limit is proposed) are reduced from 32m to 20m. (Councillor McLellan/Councillor
Cotter. Councillors Keown and Templeton requested their votes against the
resolution be recorded.)
5.3.1 This
resolution has been partially addressed in the alternative Plan Change for
notification. The extent of the area around Victoria Street where building
heights are enabled to 32m has been reduced. However, staff have not been able
to support the reduction in building height to 20m along Victoria Street and
its immediate surrounds, having regard to the zoning of the area as City
Centre, accessibility to a wide range of activities and demand in and adjoining
the commercial zone.
5.3.2 Staff
recommend this resolution is revoked following a Council decision to notify the
alternative Plan Change 14 proposal.
5.4 CNCL/2022/00121:
That the Council request staff to add to Plan Change 13 and Plan
Change 14 a new residential heritage area consisting of all properties of a
consistent age with a Woodham Road address. (Councillor Johanson/Councillor
Coker. Councillor Templeton requested her vote against the resolution be
recorded.)
5.4.1 This
resolution was intended to protect the Woodham Street properties from
intensification. Staff remain unable to support this change in the alternative
Plan Change 14 and revisions to Plan Change 13. This is because Woodham Road
both as a whole and in part, does not have the qualities to meet the criteria
used for evaluation of Residential Heritage Areas. This is due to the
inconsistency in the age of dwellings, the lack of a distinctive historic
narrative and modifications to the built form over time.
5.4.2 Staff
recommend this resolution is revoked following a Council decision to notify the
alternative Plan Change 14 proposal and the revised Plan Change 13
proposal.
5.5 CNCL/2022/00125:
That the Council request:
2.1 Staff investigate making a submission to limit the extent of the
area enabled for medium density development, to less than the staff
recommendation, by:
a.
Identification of a qualifying matter to reflect the lesser accessibility to
centres and public transport;
b.
Implementing the qualifying matter by zoning areas as Low Density (qualifying
matter – public transport accessibility) Zone as shown on the attached
map “Spatial overview of Alternative resolution to Plan Change 14
proposal” dated 12th September 2022; and
c. Restricting
development in that zone to a level the same as the Residential Suburban zone
in the Operative District Plan.
2.2 Subject
to 2.1, the areas zoned Medium Density Residential (MRZ) as recommended by
staff would be reduced to the following areas as shown on the attached map
titled “Spatial overview of Alternative resolution to Plan Change 14
proposal” dated 12th September 2022:
a. Within a
walkable distance of i. approximately 1km radius of the 5 main core bus routes
identified in the PT Futures Business case; and ii. approximately 200m from the
Bishopdale commercial centre, and within areas most accessible by walking to
the Merivale/Bryndwr (No 17) bus route, the Fendalton to Airport (No 29) bus
route and the City to Shirley bus route (No 7 and 44); except where other
proposed qualifying matters apply and with the boundaries of the zone defined
to ensure coherent and logical zone boundary (block) extents are achieved;
b.
Within all existing areas zoned as Residential Suburban Density Transition and
Residential Medium Zones under the operative Christchurch District Plan (Mayor/Councillor
Templeton)
5.5.1 This
resolution requested staff to make a submission on these matters to the
Independent Hearings Panel, presuming the Council was to make the decision to
notify Plan Change 14. This did not happen, and in the intervening period,
staff have investigated a qualifying matter based on accessibility to public
transport, which is part of the alternative plan change. The effect of
the qualifying matter is that development in areas beyond walking distance to
core public transport routes will be enabled to a level consistent with the
zoning and associated provisions in the Operative District Plan.
5.5.2 Staff
recommend this resolution is revoked following a Council decision to notify the
alternative Plan Change 14 proposal.
6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here
Strategic
AlignmentTe Rautaki
Tīaroaro
6.1 This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2021 - 2031):
6.1.1 Activity: Public Information and Participation
· Level of Service: 4.1.14.6 We work through the
Office of the CE and/or Governance Managers to provide elected members with
relevant, up-to-date, resident-focused information that they can share with
their communities. - Previous year plus 1% of elected members and Governance
Managers satisfied with content, format and tone of information.
Policy
Consistency Te Whai
Kaupapa here
6.2 The
decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and
Policies.
Impact
on Mana Whenua Ngā
Whai Take Mana Whenua
6.3 The decisions in this report, as they relate to wider
decision-making on Plan Change 14, involve a matter of interest to Mana Whenua
and decisions that would have an impact on mana whenua. Consultation has been
undertaken with Mahaanui Kurataiao Limited throughout the development of Plan
Change 14.
Climate
Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi
6.4 The decisions in this report, as they relate to Plan Change 14, are
consistent with the Kia tūroa te Ao | Ōtautahi Christchurch Climate
Resilience Strategy.
Accessibility
Considerations Ngā
Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā
6.5 The decisions in this report do not contain accessibility
considerations. However, Plan Change 14, to which they are related, seeks to
improve accessibility by enabling greater densities of housing and business
development in proximity to employment and services.
7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi
Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere
7.1 Cost
to Implement – Costs of preparation of the plan changes for notification
is budgeted as part of the programme of work of the Planning and Strategic
Transport Unit.
7.2 Maintenance/ongoing
– existing budgets.
7.3 Funding
Source - Plan Change 14 is subject to a streamlined planning process prescribed
in the RMA, which will result in additional costs including the Independent
Hearings Panel who will hear submissions. Funding of $1.8 million has been
budgeted for in 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 In
accordance with Christchurch City Council’s Standing Orders, the Council,
on a recommendation in a report by the chairperson, chief executive, or any
committee or community board, may revoke or alter all or part of a resolution
passed by a previous meeting. The chief executive must give at least 2 clear
working days’ notice of any meeting that will consider a revocation or
alteration recommendation, with details of the proposal to be considered. [SO
19.6 Revocation or alteration by recommendation in report; cl. 30 (6) Schedule
7, LGA 2002]
8.2 A
Memo from the Chief Executive sent to the Mayor and Councillors on
Friday, 24 February 2023, outlined the resolutions to be revoked, along
with reasons for the recommendations in compliance with the Standing Orders.
Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu
Hīraunga-ā-Ture
8.3 The
Council is required to make changes to the District Plan under the Resource
Management (Enabling Housing Supply and other matters) Amendment Act and the
NPS-UD. The RMA requires that proposed plan changes that the Council decides to
notify are those that are supported by an evaluation report.
8.4 With
regard to PC13, the RMA enables the Council to prepare a change to its District
Plan at any time, subject to a consultation process set out in Schedule 1 of
the Act.
9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru
9.1 Should
Council decide not to revoke the resolutions, allowing the resolutions made in
relation to the original plan change 14 to stand while also approving the
alternative plan change proposal for notification, provisions within the
proposal for notification may not reflect the resolutions made at the 8th
September meeting. A requirement to action these resolutions by changing
the provisions in the alternative proposal, would undermine the integrity of
the plan change being notified.
9.2 There
are evidential risks and possible cost implications for the Council if it was
to notify proposed District Plan provisions that are not supported in the
evaluation reports. There may not be evidence available to support such
changes.
Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga
There are no
attachments to this report.
In addition to the attached documents, the following background
information is available:
|
Document
Name – Location / File Link
|
|
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
|
Sian Daly -
Programme Manager Land Use & Growth
Mark Stevenson
- Manager Planning
|
|
Approved By
|
Brent Pizzey -
Senior Legal Counsel
John Higgins -
Head of Planning & Consents
Mary
Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community
|
|
Council
01 March 2023
|
|
|
18. Draft submission on Future for Local
Government Report
|
|
Reference / Te Tohutoro:
|
22/1382738
|
|
Report of / Te Pou Matua:
|
Gavin
Thomas, Principal Advisor Economic Policy, (gavin.thomas@ccc.govt.nz)
|
|
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:
|
Lynn
McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance
(lynn.mcclelland@ccc.govt.nz)
|
1. Nature of Decision or Issue and Report Origin
1.1 This report asks the Council to approve the draft
submission on the Future for Local Government review panel's draft report
"He mata whāriki, he matawhānui". The Council has
permission to provide its submission on 1 March 2023 (rather than 28 February),
to allow the draft submission to be considered at this meeting.
1.2 The independent panel has been commissioned by the
Minister of Local Government to report on the future of local goverment taking
into account the impacts the three waters and environmental management reforms
will have on the sector.
1.3 The
Panel released its draft report on 28 October 2022, which the Panel stated as
‘outlining the need for a local governance system in Aotearoa that is
community-focussed and citizen-centred, based on strong relationships and
partnerships’. The Panel describe the report as ‘an
opportunity to reimagine what the future could look like for local democracy
and local public services’.
1.4 The
decision in this report is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch
City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. This recognises that while there may be
significant community interest in the draft Report, the specific decision (to
approve the Council submission) is of a low level of significance.
2. Officer Recommendations / Ngā
Tūtohu
That the Council:
1. Approve the draft submission on the Future for
Local Government draft report (Attachment A)
2. Approve the feedback on recommendations and
questions from the Future for Local Government draft report (Attachment B)
3. Reason for Report Recommendations / Ngā Take mō te
Whakatau
3.1 The
Council regularly makes submissions on proposals which may significantly impact
Christchurch residents or Council business. Submissions are an important
opportunity to influence thinking and decisions through external
agencies’ consultation processes.
4. Alternative Options Considered / Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa
4.1 The
alternative option to the recommendation above is for the Council to not make a
submission in this case. This is not the preferred option as it is important
for the Council to advocate on issues that affect the Christchurch community,
Council business and our strategic priorities.
5. Detail / Te Whakamahuki
Future for Local Government Review
5.1 The Future for Local Government Review was established in April 2021
by the then-Minister of Local Government, Hon Nanaia Mahuta. The overall
purpose of the Review is to consider how New Zealand’s system of local
democracy and governance will need to evolve over the next 30 years in order to
improve the wellbeing of New Zealanders, and actively embody the Treaty
partnership.
5.2 The review is happening in parallel with Government-led reforms of
three waters service delivery, resource management planning and building regulation
service delivery. If implemented as currently planned, these reforms will
significantly reduce the scale of territorial local authority service delivery
and revenue. This review is therefore pivotal to establishing the direction for
local governance in New Zealand and who is involved and how.
5.3 The
draft report identifies five key shifts the Panel sees as fundamental to
transforming local democracy to a more viable and sustainable form given the
wider reforms underway impacting upon it. These are:
· Strengthened local
democracy;
· Authentic relationships
with hapu/iwi and Māori;
· Focus on wellbeing;
· Genuine partnership
between central and local government;
· More equitable funding.
5.4 The
key findings of the draft report are grouped under nine headings:
· Revitalising citizen-led
democracy
· Tiriti-based partnership
between Māori and local government
· Allocating roles and
functions in a way that enhances wellbeing
· Local government as
champion and activator of wellbeing
· A stronger relationship
between central and local government
· Replenishing and building
on representative democracy
· Equitable funding and
finance
· System design
· System stewardship and
support
Key submission points
5.5 The
draft report has captured significant information and analysis regarding the
options for change in local governance. A number of messages from our earlier
submission are supported in the draft report, including the need for Regulatory
Impact Statements to include local government impacts, the need to broaden
funding options, and that all levels of Government have a part to take in
sharing local government funding challenges.
5.6 The
issues raised in the Council’s earlier submission to the Panel’s
interim report remain valid and many have flowed through to this draft
submission. The key messages contained in the Council’s draft submission
are:
· We need a new integrated
model of government for New Zealand. It cannot simply be about local
government, local governance or local democracy.
· An integrated wellbeing
approach is already embedded in local government and is at the heart of
everything we do. Local government’s contribution and potential needs to
be better understood and acknowledged by central government and integrated with
national systems and services.
· The Crown must clarify
local government’s role(s) in the national Te Tiriti partnership.
· It’s time to
completely re-think council funding and financing. Councils must be entrusted
with more enabling legislation regarding funding approaches.
· The review must settle on
a single preferred local government structure. Our preference is for that to be
a unitary council model with flexibility to adapt to local needs and
preferences.
· A clear implementation
plan is required with funding and appropriate structural proposals to empower
local government. The new government needs to be able to move quickly following
the 2023 general election to begin to implement the changes required.
5.7 The
Council has also provided input into submissions from the Canterbury Mayoral
Forum and the Local Government New Zealand metropolitan councils group.
5.8 The decision affects all Community Board areas.
6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here
Strategic
Alignment /Te Rautaki
Tīaroaro
6.1 This decision aligns with the Council’s Strategic Framework.
6.2 This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2021 - 2031):
6.2.1 Activity:
Strategic Planning, Future Development and Regeneration
· Level of Service: 17.0.1.1 Advice to Council on high priority policy
and planning issues that affect the City. Advice is aligned with and delivers
on the governance expectations as evidenced through the Council Strategic
Framework. - Triennial reconfirmation of the strategic framework or as
required.
Policy
Consistency / Te Whai
Kaupapa here
6.3 The
decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and
Policies.
6.4 Staff have also endeavoured to ensure the content of the draft
submission and accompanying feedback to be provided to the panel is consistent
with previous Council submissions on matters covered by the draft report.
Impact
on Mana Whenua Ngā
Whai Take Mana Whenua
6.5 The
decision is not a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body
of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not
specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions.
6.6 The
decision involves a matter of interest to Mana Whenua and staff understand Te
Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu will prepare their own submission on the Report.
6.7 The
Panel has engaged widely with iwi/Māori. Chapter 3 of the Report
explores options for Tiriti-based partnership between local government and mana
whenua, acknowledging that this is a national conversation wherein central
government also has a key role.
6.8 The
draft report acknowledges that a lack of capacity and capability is
constraining the ability of both local government and mana whenua to more
actively engage and collaborate. It also makes recommendations for
specific legislative direction for councils in this area.
6.9 Council staff have engaged with Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu
staff in preparing the draft submission.
Climate
Change Impact Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi
6.10 Climate
change implications for the future of local government have been raised in the
draft submission as appropriate. There are no direct climate change
implications associated with the decision to approve this submission.
Accessibility
Considerations / Ngā
Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā
6.11 There
are no direct accessibility implications associated with the decision to
approve this submission.
7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi
Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere
7.1 Cost
to Implement – existing operational budgets
7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing
costs – there are no ongoing costs associated with this submission
7.3 Funding
Source – existing operational budgets
8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture
Statutory power to undertake proposals in the report /
Te Manatū Whakahaere Kaupapa
8.1 This
consultation is open to the public and any legal person can make a submission
on the draft Report.
Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture
8.2 There is no legal context, issue or implication relevant to
this decision.
9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru
9.1 There
are no significant risks associated with this decision.
Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga
|
No.
|
Title
|
Reference
|
Page
|
|
a ⇩ 
|
Draft
submission on Future for Local Government draft report
|
23/271412
|
16
|
|
b ⇩ 
|
Responses to
Panel Report Recommendations and Questions
|
23/271435
|
23
|
In addition to the attached documents, the following background
information is available:
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
|
Ellen Cavanagh
- Senior Policy Analyst
Gavin Thomas -
Principal Advisor Economic Policy
|
|
Approved By
|
David
Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience
Lynn
McClelland - Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance
|
