Agenda of Council - Monday, 2 December 2024

5. Plan Change 14 - Independent Hearings Panel Recommendations and Council Decision
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/913915
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Ike Kleynbos (Principal Advisor – Planning), Mark Stevenson (Acting Head of Planning and Consents)
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	John Higgins, General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Council to accept or reject recommendations of the Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) on those parts of Plan Change 14 – Housing and Business Choice (PC14) that implement policies 3 and 4 of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD), including proposed Financial Contributions; and if rejected, of the alternative recommendations to the Minister.

1.2 Hon Chris Bishop, Minister for Resource Management Reform and Housing, has directed that the Council notify decisions on IHP recommendations by^{^[1]}:

1.2.1 20 December 2024 for those aspects of Plan Change 14 that implement policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD (intensification in and around centres); and

1.2.2 12 December 2025 for all other IHP recommendations.

2. Recommendations

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in this Plan Change 14 - Independent Hearings Panel Recommendations and Council Decision Report.

2. Receives the Independent Hearings Panel – Plan Change 14 Housing and Business Choice recommendation reports, including recommendations on submissions, further report addendums to the recommendations report, and further minutes that modify the recommendations report, as provided on the PC14 IHP Webpage: https://chch2023.ihp.govt.nz/recommendations-report/.

3. Notes that the decision in this report is of high significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Decision to only consider recommendations within NPS-UD Policy 3 areas, unless specified

4. Limits decision making to the following proposed zones, precincts, and/or overlays, including the application of qualifying matters (where relevant):

a. City Centre Zone;

b. Central City Mixed Use Zone;

c. Central City Mixed Use (South Frame) Zone;

d. Mixed Use Zone;

e. Town Centre Zone;

f. Local Centre Zone;

g. Neighbourhood Centre Zone;

h. Commercial Banks Peninsula Zone (Lyttelton only);

i. Subject to the adoption of Elected Members’ alternative recommendations, High Density Residential Zone (as per Recommendations 51-54, 57-59, 62, 63, 65, 66);

j. Central City Residential Precinct;

k. Subject to the adoption of Elected Members’ alternative recommendations, Medium Density Residential Zone (where described as a Policy 3 response) in the following areas:

i. Greater walking catchments around City Centre, Barrington, Bishopdale, and Halswell (incorporating Cllr Templeton’s alternative Recommendations 65-67);

ii. 9 Daresbury Lane, 71B and 67A, 67B, 67C, and 71B Fendalton Road (incorporating Cllr MacDonald’s alternative Recommendation 68);

iii. Piko/Shand Residential Heritage Area and Residential Character Area (incorporating Cllr Harrison-Hunt’s alternative Recommendation 70);

iv. Areas within the Riccarton Bush Interface Area (incorporating Cllr Harrison-Hunt’s alternative Recommendation 51);

v. 265 Riccarton Road (incorporating Cllr Harrison-Hunt’s alternative Recommendation 69);

l. Large Format Retail Zone;

m. Residential Visitor Accommodation Zone (excluding sites not within or adjacent to any zone listed in Recommendations 4(a) through (k) above);

n. Brownfield Overlay;

o. Specific Purpose (Hospital) Zone (excluding: Princess Margret Hospital; Hillmorton Hospital; and Burwood Hospital);

p. Specific Purpose (School) Zone (excluding sites not within or adjacent to any zone listed in Recommendations 4(a) through (k) above);

q. Specific Purpose (Tertiary Education) Zone;

r. Specific Purpose (Cemetery) Zone (Barbadoes Street only);

s. Specific Purpose (Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor) Zone.

Qualifying matters:

5. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on the Public Open Space qualifying matter.

6. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on the Lyttelton Commercial Centre Heights.

7. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on the Lyttelton Port Influences Overlay (only within the Commercial Banks Peninsula Zone in Lyttelton).

8. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on the Styx River Setback qualifying matter.

9. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on New Regent Street Height Precinct.

10. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on Arts Centre Height Precinct.

11. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on Central City Heritage Interface.

12. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on the following Residential Heritage Areas:

a. Inner City West;

b. Chester Street East;

c. Heaton Street;

d. Lyttelton;

e. Piko/Shand State Housing (via Cllr Harrison-Hunt);

13. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on Residential Heritage Area Interface.

14. Except where stated below, accepts the Panel’s recommendations on Heritage Items and Settings:

a. Accepts the Panel’s recommendation to reject submissions to remove from the heritage schedule 59 Hansons Lane and 181 High Street.

b. Accepts the Panel’s recommendation to accept/accept in part submissions to amend the extent or location of heritage items or settings for New Regent Street Shops and 135 High Street.

c. Accepts the Panel’s recommendation that scheduling new items is outside the scope of PC14 (and instead hear them in PC13).

d. Accepts the Panel’s recommendation to accept the qualifying matters for operative heritage items and settings as it applies to sites within any zone listed in Recommendations 4(a) through (s) above (excluding those parts decided by the Council on 18 September 2024 (Part of City Centre Zone)).

e. Accepts the Panel’s recommendation to accept the heritage height qualifying matter applying within the heritage settings of The Arts Centre and New Regent St and associated rule amendments in 15.11.1.3 RD11 and 15.11.2.11 a. ii.

f. Accepts the Panel’s recommendation to reject the heritage qualifying matter for the Central City Heritage Interface applying to sites adjoining The Arts Centre and New Regent St settings and to replace this with a matter of discretion in 15.14.2.6 a. x.E. and repeated in 15.14.3.1 a. xiv.

g. Except where the alternative recommendations are accepted from Cllr MacDonald for the heritage item and setting for 9 Daresbury Lane (Recommendation 68) and/or from Cllr Harrison-Hunt for the heritage item and setting for 265 Riccarton Road (Recommendation 69).

15. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on Cathedral Square Interface.

16. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on Victoria Street Height qualifying matter.

17. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on Radiocommunication Pathways qualifying matter.

18. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on the North Halswell Outline Development Plan qualifying mater.

19. Only for sites within any zone listed in Recommendations 4(a) through (k) above:

a. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes.

b. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on High Flood Hazard Management Area.

c. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on Coastal Hazard Medium and High Risk Management Areas.

d. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on Waterbody setbacks.

e. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on Wastewater constraint qualifying matter.

f. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on Sites of Ecological Significance.

g. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on Sites of Cultural Significance qualifying matter.

h. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on NZ Rail Network building setback.

i. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on the Industrial interface.

j. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on Significant and Other Trees.

k. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on Residential Character Areas (only for Lyttelton, Ranfurly, Beverley, and Clifton);

20. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on sub-chapter 6.1A (qualifying matters), where related to decisions made on qualifying matters and related provisions.

21. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on any other qualifying matter proposed by submitters, where relevant to any zone listed in Recommendations 4(a) through (k) above.

Zoning / Chapter decisions

22. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on the City Centre Zone, for those areas yet to be decided upon following the Council’s 18 September 2024 Plan Change 14 decision.

23. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on Central City Mixed Use Zone and Central City Mixed Use (South Frame) Zone.

24. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on Local Centre Zone.

25. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on Neighbourhood Centre Zone.

26. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on Large Format Retail Zone.

27. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on Residential Visitor Accommodation Zone (excluding site not within or adjacent to any zone listed in Recommendations 4(a) through (k) above).

28. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on Commercial Banks Peninsula Zone (Lyttelton only).

29. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on Residential Banks Peninsula Zone, to the extent that they support or are consequential on this decision.

30. Accepts the Panel’s recommendation on Enhanced Development Mechanism, to the extent that they support or are consequential on this decision.

31. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on Brownfield Overlay.

32. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on Specific Purpose (Hospital) Zone (excluding: Princess Margret Hospital; Hillmorton Hospital; and Burwood Hospital).

33. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on Specific Purpose (School) Zone (excluding sites not within or adjacent to any zone listed in Recommendations 4(a) through (k) above).

34. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on Specific Purpose (Tertiary Education) Zone.

35. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on Specific Purpose (Cemetery) Zone (Barbadoes Street only).

36. Accepts the Panel's recommendations on Specific Purpose (Lyttelton Port) Zone.

37. Accepts the Panel's recommendations on Specific Purpose (Flat Land Recovery) Zone.

38. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on Specific Purpose (Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor) Zone.

39. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on Chapter 2 (Definitions), where related to decisions made on zones and related provisions.

40. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on Chapter 3 (Strategic Directions).

41. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on Chapter 7 (Transport), as they apply to Medium Density Residential Zone and High Density Residential Zone, only.

42. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on Chapter 8 (Subdivision, Development and Earthworks), where related to decisions made on zones and related provisions.

43. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on planning maps, where related to decisions made on zones.

44. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on Town Centre Zone, except where the alternative recommendation for the Town Centre Zone in Hornby is accepted (see Recommendation 60);

45. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on High Density Residential Zone and Central City Residential Precinct, including associated changes to Chapter 14 (and associated chapters or sub-chapters), except where the following alternative recommendations are accepted:

a. Around the Riccarton Town Centre Zone (see Recommendations 53 and 54);

b. Around the Hornby Town Centre Zone (see Recommendation 58);

c. Around the City Centre Zone (see Recommendation 65);

46. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on Medium Density Residential Zone (where identified as a Policy 3 response), including associated changes to Chapter 14 (and associated chapters or sub-chapters), except where the following alternative recommendations are accepted: :

a. Around Peer Street and Avonhead Local Centre Zones (see Recommendation 55);

b. Around Barrington, Bishopdale, and Halswell Local Centre Zones (see Recommendation 67).

Financial Contributions & Other Recommendations

47. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations on financial contributions for tree canopy cover.

48. Agrees that the Council progress with investigating a plan change that proposes financial contributions be required where trees are not retained or planted (via Cllr Coker).

49. Agrees that the Council investigate undertaking a further social impact assessment on the areas facing intensification in the east of the city, noting that the scope of such assessment should include considering the impact on pacific communities and impact of gentrification on existing communities in the east. (via Cllr Johanson).

ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION FROM COUNCIL OFFICERS:

50. Regarding the Panel’s recommendation to apply the residential pathways, either:

a. Accepts Council Officers’ alternative recommendation to:

i. Accept the Panel’s recommendations for Pathways A and B to be independent.

ii. Accept the application of currently operative provisions for residential zones where it overlaps with Medium Density Residential Zones and High Density Residential Zone (only as it aligns with this decision, i.e. Policy 3 areas)

iii. Reject the Panel’s recommendations to alter provisions (e.g. 14.2.e) that remove independence of Pathways A and B or make this independence unclear, and propose an alternative recommendation that provides for the independence of Pathways A and B in accordance with Attachment 1 to this report.

iv. Reject integrating the Chapter 14B pathway throughout the relevant chapters and propose an alternative way in accordance with Attachment 1 to this report.

b. Accepts the Panel’s recommended changes to Chapter 14 as per Minutes 50, 56, and 58 and the Recommendation Report.

ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM ELECTED MEMBERS:

Riccarton Bush Interface Area qualifying matter – Harrison-Hunt / MacDonald:

51. Regarding the Panel’s recommendations on the Riccarton Bush Interface Area qualifying matter, either:

a. Accepts the alternative recommendations to (refer to Attachment 2 to this report):

i. Reject the Panel’s Part 5 (section 20, including Addendum 2) Recommendation to remove the Riccarton Bush Interface Area qualifying matter; and

ii. Recommend applying the Riccarton Bush Interface Area qualifying matter and associated zoning response, as per the Council Reply.

b. Accepts the Panel’s recommendation to remove the Riccarton Bush Interface Area qualifying matter.

Papanui War Memorial Avenues consideration – Henstock:

52. Regarding the consideration of Papanui War Memorial Avenues in High Density Residential Zone, either:

a. Accepts the alternative recommendation to (refer to Attachment 2 to this report):

i. Accept in-part the Panel’s Parts 4 (section 3) and 8 (Appendix H) Recommendations, specifically in relation to controls associated with Papanui War Memorial Avenues.

ii. Recommend that a new schedule identifying Papanui War Memorial Avenues is included in the District Plan, with matters of discretion associated with building height and setback non-compliance (14.15.3) and building coverage non-compliance (14.15.2) modified to require specific consideration of the adverse effects development on road-fronting sites may have on the Papanui War Memorial Avenues.

b. Accepts the Panel’s recommendation on High Density Residential Zone provisions.

High Density Residential zone catchment around Riccarton – Harrison-Hunt:

53. Regarding the Panel’s recommendations on High Density Residential zoning surrounding Riccarton, either:

a. Accepts the alternative recommendation to (refer to Attachment 2 to this report):

i. Accept in-part the Panel’s Part 3 (section 5) Recommendations relating to the High Density Residential Zone catchment surrounding the Riccarton Town Centre Zone, with further modification to include 25 Deans Avenue (Pt RS 9 Canterbury District) within the High Density Residential Zone.

ii. Recommend zoning the area within the Riccarton Bush Interface Area only to Medium Density Residential Zone, subject to acceptance of the alternative recommendation, including any property that has access to Matai Street West.

b. Accepts the Panel’s recommendation for High Density Residential zoning surrounding Riccarton Town Centre Zone.

25 Deans Avenue building height precinct – Keown:

54. Regarding the Panel’s recommendation for Medium Density Residential Zone on 25 Deans Avenue, either:

a. Accepts the alternative recommendation to (refer to Attachment 2 to this report):

i. Reject in-part the Panel’s Part 3 (section 5) recommendations on the High Density Catchment and associated building height; and

ii. Recommend that 25 Deans Avenue (Pt RS 9 Canterbury District) be zoned High Density Residential Zone and have a site-specific ‘Deans Avenue building height precinct’ applied, which permits a building height of 36 metres.

b. Accepts the Panel’s recommendation for Medium Density Residential Zone on 25 Deans Avenue.

Local Centre Zone residential catchments – MacDonald:

55. Regarding the Panel’s Policy 3 recommendation to apply Medium Density Residential zone around Peer Street and Avonhead local centres, either:

a. Accepts the alternative recommendation to (refer to Attachment 2 to this report):

i. Reject in-part the Panel’s Part 3 (section 6) Recommendations regarding the 200 metre walking catchment around other Local Centres to apply Medium Density Residential zone, for the following centres only: Avonhead Local Centre; and Peer Street Local Centre.

b. Accepts the Panel’s Policy 3 recommendation to apply Medium Density Residential zone around Peer Street and Avonhead Local Centre zones;

City Spine qualifying matter – Harrison-Hunt:

56. Regarding the Panel’s recommendation on the City Spine qualifying matter, either:

a. Accepts the alternative recommendation to (refer to Attachment 2 to this report):

i. Reject in-part the Panel’s Part 5 Recommendations to remove the City Spine (section 17) qualifying matter, to the extent that any operative front yard setbacks (only) are retained along the identified corridor, only where Medium or High Density Residential zoned areas are decided on; and

ii. Accept the Panel’s rejection of any other provision the qualifying matter had proposed.

b. Accepts the Panel’s recommendation to remove the City Spine qualifying matter.

Sunlight Access qualifying matter – MacDonald / Peters:

57. Regarding the Panel’s recommendation to remove the Sunlight Access qualifying matter, either:

a. Accepts the alternative recommendation to (refer to Attachment 2 to this report):

i. Reject the Panel’s Part 4 (section 4, including Addendum) Recommendations to remove the Sunlight Access qualifying matter and the application of the MDRS height in relation to boundary density standard over Medium and High Density Residential zones areas decided upon.

ii. Recommend adopting the Sunlight Access qualifying matter approach within Medium and High Density Residential zones, as per the Council Reply, but only limited to those Medium and High Density Residential zones decided upon.

b. Accepts the Panel’s recommendation to remove the Sunlight Access qualifying matter.

High Density Residential Zone catchment around Hornby Town Centre Zone – Peters:

58. Regarding the Panel’s recommendations for High Density Residential zoning surrounding Hornby’s Town Centre Zone, either:

a. Accepts the alternative recommendation to (refer to Attachment 2 to this report):

i. Reject in-part the Panel’s Part 3 (section 5) Recommendations regarding the High Density Residential Zone catchment surrounding Hornby’s Town Centre Zone, reducing the catchment between Neill and Oakhampton streets, and aligning the zone boundary with the operative Residential Medium Density Zone boundary between Blankney and Trevor streets (along Trevor Reserve).

b. Accepts the Panel’s recommendations for High Density Residential zoning surrounding the Hornby Town Centre Zone.

High Density Residential Zone permitted building height in Hornby – Peters:

59. Regarding permitted building heights for the High Density Residential Zone in Hornby, either:

a. Accepts the alternative recommendation to (refer to Attachment 2 to this report):

i. Reject in-part the Panel’s Part 4 (section 3) Recommendations regarding the permitted 14 metre building height within HRZ, as applied around the Hornby Town Centre Zone.

ii. Recommend that a new ‘Reduced building height precinct’ is introduced for High Density Residential zones around the Hornby Town Centre Zone, limiting 14.6.2.1 Building Height to 12 metres within the precinct.

b. Accepts the Panel’s recommendation for 14 metre permitted building heights for the High Density Residential Zone in Hornby.

Town Centre Zone permitted building heights in Hornby – Peters:

60. Regarding permitted building heights for the Town Centre Zone in Hornby, either:

a. Accepts the alternative recommendation to (refer to Attachment 2 to this report):

i. Reject in-part the Panel’s Part 3 (section 5) Recommendations regarding permitted building height of 32 meters within the Town Centre Zone of Hornby.

ii. Recommend that the permitted building height for the Town Centre Zone of Hornby be limited to 22 metres.

b. Accepts the Panel’s recommended 32 metre permitted building heights for the Town Centre Zone in Hornby.

Town Centre Zone building heights and form for Linwood – Johanson:

61. Regarding permitted building heights for the Town Centre Zone in Linwood, either:

a. Accepts the alternative recommendation to (refer to Attachment 2 to this report):

i. Reject in-part the Panel’s Part 3 (section 5) Recommendations regarding permitted building height of 22 meters within the Town Centre Zone of Linwood and associated recession plane at residential boundary.

ii. Recommend that permitted height for the Town Centre Zone of Linwood be limited to 20 metres and recession plane used in 15.4.2.5 is modified to be taken from 3 metres above ground level, as per the standards of Sunlight Access qualifying matter included in the Council Reply.

b. Accepts the Panel’s recommended 22 metre permitted building heights for the Town Centre Zone in Linwood and recommended recession plane (of the MDRS).

High Density Residential Walking Catchment around Linwood Town Centre Zone – Johanson:

62. Regarding the Panel’s recommendations for High Density Residential zoning surrounding Linwood’s Town Centre Zone, either:

a. Accepts the alternative recommendation to (refer to Attachment 2 to this report):

i. Reject in-part the Panel’s Part 3 (section 5) Recommendations regarding the High Density Residential Zone catchment surrounding Linwood’s Town Centre Zone, recommending the catchment is reduced to a 400 metre walking catchment, as per the Council notified position.

b. Accept the Panel’s recommended 600 metre walking catchment around Linwood’s Town Centre Zone.

High Density Residential Zone permitted building heights in Linwood – Johanson:

63. Regarding permitted building heights for the High Density Residential Zone in Linwood, either:

a. Accepts the alternative recommendation to (refer to Attachment 2 to this report):

i. Reject in-part the Panel’s Part 4 (section 3) Recommendations regarding the permitted 14 metre building height within High Density Residential Zone, as applied around the Linwood Town Centre Zone.

ii. Recommend that a new ‘Reduced building height precinct’ is introduced for High Density Residential zones around the Linwood Town Centre Zone, limiting 14.6.2.1 Building Height to 12 metres within the precinct.

b. Accepts the Panel’s recommendation for 14 metre permitted building heights for the High Density Residential Zone in Linwood.

Airport Noise Influence Area controls – MacDonald:

64. Regarding controls associated with the Airport Noise Influence Area qualifying matter, either:

a. Accepts the alternative recommendation to (refer to Attachment 2 to this report):

i. Reject in-part the Panel’s Part 4 (section 6) Recommendations regarding the Airport Noise Influence Area qualifying matter over Medium and High Density Residential zoned areas decided upon.

ii. Recommend further modifying the residential controls relating to development within both the 50 dB Ldn Air Noise Contour and the 2023 Remodelled 50 dB Ldn Outer Envelope Contour (over Medium and High Density Residential zoned areas decided upon) by:

· Setting the Restricted Discretionary Activity rule regarding development within these contours to from three units (rather than from four units) in Chapter 14A for both Medium and High Density Residential zones; and

· Removing the limited notification clause (b.) requiring notification to the Christchurch International Airport Limited absent written approval.

b. Accepts the Panel’s recommended controls associated with the 50 dB Ldn Air Noise Contour and the 2023 Remodelled 50 dB Ldn Outer Envelope Contour.

City Centre walking catchment and Sydenham Mixed Use zoning – Templeton:

65. Regarding the application of the NPS-UD Policy 3 (c)(ii) walking catchment from the edge of the City Centre Zone, either:

a. Accepts the alternative recommendation to (refer to Attachment 2 to this report):

i. Reject in-part the Panel’s Part 3 (section 4) Recommendation regarding the Policy 3 (c) walking catchment around the City Centre Zone (CCZ), instead adopt a walking catchment of up to 1.2km from the edge of CCZ and:

ii. Apply the High Density Residential Zone as per Attachment 2 to this report, including consequential changes for the Central City Residential Precinct; and

iii. Apply the Mixed Use Zone and the Comprehensive Residential Precinct as per the Council Reply position, but only for Addington and Sydenham (not Phillipstown), as per the catchment illustrated in Attachment 2 to this report; and

iv. Modify Mixed Use Zone rules for Addington and Sydenham by:

· Introducing a new schedule of permitted activities that include all operative permitted activities under 16.4.1.1 (Industrial General Zone permitted activities) and exempt these from any height control under proposed rule 15.10.2.1; and

· Modifying proposed rule 15.10.1.1 P12 to remove activity standards and any reference to Phillipstown;

· Support Chapter 2 Definitions additions and changes associated with the Mixed Use Zone as proposed in the Council Reply and any other consequential or related provisions, guides, or appendices.

b. Accepts the Panel’s recommendation to apply a walking catchment of between approximately zero metres to 800 metres from the edge of the City Centre Zone.

High Density Residential zoning for 231 Milton Street and 12 Johnson Street – Templeton:

66. Regarding High Density Residential zoning for 231 Milton Street and 12 Johnson Street, either:

a. Accepts the alternative recommendation to (refer to Attachment 2 to this report):

i. Reject in-part the Panel’s Part 3 (section 5) recommendation regarding HRZ zone boundary over 231 Milton Street and 12 Johnson Street and alternatively zone this in accordance with the current parcel configuration, as per the Council Reply position.

b. Accepts the Panel’s recommendation to retain High Density Residential Zoning as notified.

Perimeter block controls – Templeton:

67. Regarding perimeter block controls associated with the Local Centre Intensification Precinct, either:

a. Accepts the alternative recommendation to (refer to Attachment 2 to this report):

i. Reject the Panel’s Part 4 (section 3) recommendation regarding the removal of the Local Centre Intensification Precinct.

ii. Recommend applying the Local Centre Intensification Precinct around the Local Centre’s identified in the Council Reply, aligning the spatial extent with the 200 metre walking catchment recommended by the Panel, except for Barrington, Bishopdale, and Halswell catchments, which should adopt the 400 metre catchment as per Council Reply.

iii. Recommend that the Council Reply provisions for the precinct apply with the following modifications:

· Permitted building height (14.5.2.3.a.i.b) is reduced to 12 metres; and

· Permitted height in relation to boundary intrusion sub-standards (14.5.2.6.b.iv.A) are modified to residential units of a maximum of 12 metres in height.

b. Accepts the Panel’s recommendation to remove the Local Centre Intensification Precinct and all associated controls.

Daresbury House heritage listing – MacDonald:

68. Regarding the heritage listing for Daresbury House [9 Daresbury Lane] and associated heritage setting, either:

a. Accepts the alternative recommendation to (refer to Attachment 2 to this report):

i. Reject in-part the Panel’s Part 5 (section 10), specifically in relation to the recommendation to retain the Daresbury heritage listing (Item 185) and associated heritage setting (Item 602).

ii. Recommend that the Daresbury heritage listing (Item 185) and associated heritage setting (Item 602) are removed.

b. Make no decision on the Panel’s recommendation for the Daresbury House heritage listing [as this is outside of a Policy 3 area and no decision is required until 12 December 2025].

Antonio Hall heritage listing – Harrison-Hunt:

69. Regarding the heritage listing for Antonio Hall [265 Riccarton Road] and associated heritage setting, either:

a. Accepts the alternative recommendation to (refer to Attachment 2 to this report):

i. Reject in-part the Panel’s Part 5 (section 10) Recommendations, specifically in relation to the recommendation to retain the heritage listing for Antonio Hall (Item 463) and associated (reduced) heritage setting (Item 203).

ii. Recommend that the heritage listing for Antonio Hall (Item 463) and associated heritage setting (Item 203) is removed.

b. Make no decision on the Panel’s recommendation for the Antonio Hall heritage listing [as this is outside of a Policy 3 area and no decision is required until 12 December 2025].

Piko Residential Character Area – Harrison-Hunt:

70. Regarding the Panel’s recommendation to retain the Piko Residential Character Area, either:

a. Accepts the alternative recommendation to (refer to Attachment 2 to this report):

i. Reject in-part Panel’s Part 5 (section 19) Recommendations, specifically in relation to the recommendation to retain the existing Piko Residential Character Area.

ii. Recommend that the Piko Residential Character Area is removed.

b. Make no decision on the Panel’s recommendation for the Piko Residential Character Area [as this is outside of a Policy 3 area and no decision is required until 12 December 2025].

Clerical delegations and approvals:

71. Delegates authority to the Head of Planning and Consents to make changes of minor effect or to correct minor errors in the accepted Panel’s recommendations before publicly notifying its decision on these recommendations.

72. Resolves to publicly notify its decisions in resolutions 5 to 70 above NO LATER THAN 14 February 2025 and to serve that public notice on every person who made a submission on Plan Change 14.

73. Requests staff to report to the Council on the remainder of the Panel’s recommendations in time to publicly notify decisions by 12 December 2025.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The Resource Management Act required the Council to notify a plan change to give effect to the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 (NPS-UD) and Medium Density Residential Standards in Schedule 3A of the Resource Management Act. An Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) has heard submissions on the plan change. The IHP issued its recommendations report to the Council^{^[2]} on 29 July 2024 and the Council must decide whether to accept or reject the IHP’s recommendations.

3.2 The Council is required to make decisions on those aspects of proposed Plan Change 14 (Housing and Business Choice) that implement the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) by 20 December 2024. Beyond this, Council has until 12 December 2025 to make decisions on the remainder of PC14.

3.3 As per the direction of the Minister, the Council must at least consider Polices 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD.

3.4 Any decision by the Council that rejects a recommendation by the IHP (in whole or part) must instead be determined by the Minister. A decision by the Council accepting an IHP recommendation will have immediate effect and cannot be appealed. Where the Minister is required to decide on a recommendation, that part of the proposal will not have legal effect during the process and will only come into effect once the Minister issues his decisions. The decisions of the Minister are final and are not subject to appeals. Any decision on the plan change can be scrutinised through the judicial review process through the High Court, which may direct the Council to make changes to the District Plan.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 Plan Change 14 is the Council’s response to national direction in the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) and the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021 (RM Amendment Act), by enabling intensification in and around commercial areas and permitting development in accordance with Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS) in the District Plan except where a qualifying matter necessitates limiting that development.

4.2 Plan change 14 was publicly notified on 17 March 2023. Prior to its notification, the Council engaged and consulted with the community over April/May 2022. This included letters to affected properties, public advertising, flyers in all Christchurch City Council libraries and services centres, a consultation website, and direct engagement via interactive webinars and specific stakeholder engagement. The Council received feedback from about 700 respondents, including Crown agencies, resident associations, and professional associations. A report summarising feedback was published online in June 2022, synthesising feedback received.

4.3 Further evaluation work was completed following the conclusion of public pre-notification engagement, culminating in officers seeking to notify the plan change on 8 September 2022. The Council voted against the resolution to notify the plan change, instead writing to the Environment Minister, Hon David Parker, expressing the Council’s concerns that the direction to intensify was not bespoke to a Christchurch context. An alternative PC14 proposal was drafted, with public webinar sessions in mid-December 2022 and mid-February 2023 to inform the public on the contents of the alternative proposal and address any questions raised.

4.4 Separate to the above, the Council also engaged with iwi authorities through Mahaanui Kurataiao Limited (Mahaanui). The full draft proposal was discussed with Mahaanui in April 2022, with draft s32 evaluation reports and related reports in July 2022. Following the decision to reject the plan change for notification in September 2022, Mahaanui also reviewed the alternative proposal in 2023.

4.5 The Council received over 900 submissions on the plan change following its notification in March 2023, which closed on 12 May 2023. Hearings on the plan change were facilitated by the IHP between October and November 2023 and April 2024.

4.6 The IHP issued its recommendation reports on 29 July 2024. The Council had intended to decide on all IHP recommendations on policy 3 and 4 areas on 4^th September so that it could meet the Minister’s initial Gazette notice deadline of 12 September. However, as noted in the Officers’ report to Council on 21 August (See Item 8 in Agenda), the Council was unable to do so because of the IHP’s request that Officers re-write the Residential Chapter, the interconnection between that redrafting and other IHP recommendations, and clarifications that the Council had asked of the IHP.

4.7 The Council subsequently requested more time for decisions to give effect to policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD and thereafter, the Minister extended the deadline for the Council to publicly notify decisions on IHP recommendations on policy 3 and 4 areas to 20 December 2024.

4.8 The Council made its first decision on recommendations of the IHP on 18 September 2024, when it accepted the recommendations in respect of part of the City Centre zone, related qualifying matters and the delisting of six (6) heritage items. The relevant provisions were made operative on 3 October 2024 and are now part of the District Plan.

4.8.1 The latest mapping endorsed by the Independent Hearings Panel was issued on 20 September 2024 and available here: PC14 IHP Recommendation – Draft Council Mapping (20 September 2024). These maps do not include the latest recommendations, most notably Medium Density Residential zoning beneath Residential Character Areas, and the delineation of the Local Centre Policy catchments for Lyttelton, Sumner, Redcliffs, and New Brighton. Reference should be made to Minute 58 (Appendix 4, from page 197).

Residential Redraft & Alternative Recommendation

4.9 The task of redrafting the Residential Chapter to develop a means to operationalise the ‘three pathways approach’ that the Panel directed in its Recommendation has been an involved and complex process for staff. This pathways approach was the Panel’s method of applying the High Court precedent, known as Waikanae. There was no opportunity for the Council (or any other party) to provide commentary on the interpretation of the Court’s findings, or to modify provisions accordingly, as the Court issued its decision after the close of PC14 hearings and after the Council issued its final proposal to the IHP (the Council Reply). Throughout the hearing, the Council advanced a different interpretation of the RMA provisions than the one subsequently preferred by the High Court (as did the Kapiti Coast District Council, from where the case originates).

4.10 The High Court precedent determines that the RMA prevents an Intensification Planning Instrument (as PC14 is)from implementing any provision that is more restrictive than the status quo. The IHP’s pathways approach therefore sought to provide a means for all current relevant residential zone controls to exist alongside PC14 proposed provisions. The first pathway was to consider current controls, the second was to consider all permitted PC14 controls, and the third managing the non-compliances with PC14 provisions. The second and third are fundamentally the full application of the PC14 framework. To apply the pathways, Officers suggested that the PC14 proposed zones (Medium and High Density Residential zones) be considered the primary ‘default’ framework that would apply, and then a series of overlays would denote where the current pre-PC14 zones exist, simply changing the name ‘zone’ for ‘overlay’. Applicants could then choose to elect the use of the operative pathway if they wished, however failure to elect the ‘overlays approach’ means that PC14 zones are simply applied.

4.11 The final approach is for the front end of the Residential Chapter to focus on how the pathways works, setting the standards for when each is applied, and when and how the election of the operative pathway must be achieved. Subsequent to that, the newly named Chapter 14A contains all PC14 proposals, while Chapter 14B contains all relevant operative zone controls, expressed as overlays. An applicant who therefore elected to use current controls would elect to use the ‘Chapter 14B pathway’.

4.12 The Panel concluded the residential redraft process when it issued Minute 58^{^[3]} on 21 November 2024. The Panel acknowledges the complexity of the pathways framework and other means to address the High Court direction, stating:

The Panel recognises that the integration of the Chapter 14B pathway throughout the relevant chapters is complex and the above are examples of how this could be undertaken. Council may consider that there may be other ways that would achieve the same outcome and that is acceptable to the Panel.

In undertaking this integration exercise, it is recognised that the Council has recourse to RMA, Schedule 1, clause 16 or a Schedule 1 RMA administrative plan change may be the more effective longer-term option to synthesis and simplify the Plan with respect to the Chapter 14B pathway.

4.13 Council Officers have reviewed the content of this final minute and sought further advice on the consistency of the pathways recommendations and the implications of the further changes that Minute 58 directs. This has concluded that the direction provided across the various minutes on the Residential Redraft is inconsistent and would not achieve the stated outcomes that the Panel intended the three pathways approach to achieve. Making a decision to accept the current state of the Panel’s direction would therefore increase uncertainty of how the pathways approach should be applied. This is due to the following matters:

4.13.1 The Panel has affirmed that the pathways should be considered independently, but changes made to rules (e.g. 14.2.e) in Minute 58 provide the means for both PC14 rules and operative zone rules to be in play, simultaneously, whilst other rules that sought to retain independence are unchanged. This appears to be an error by the IHP that cannot be classed as a minor error.

4.13.2 The Panel have directed that the Chapter 14B operative pathway approach should be applied across all related chapters (Panel’s Chapter 14B approach), effectively duplicating a large portion of the District Plan, artificially increasing complexity throughout the Plan (likely unnecessarily so).

4.14 There is not time for the Council to ask the IHP to correct that error. The result is a contradictory framework, which if applied, would compromise the resource consent process, increase legal challenge on a case-by-case basis, and generally confuse the application of the Residential Chapter. Given the timeframe for making a Policy 3 decision, the Council is unable to seek further clarification from the Panel, leaving few options for recourse. Only two options appear to be available, with one being feasible: accept the recommendation but alter the recommendation in a way that has a minor effect or to correct a minor error through Clause 102 of the First Schedule of the RMA; or accept those parts of the recommendation that support the pathways approach and reject those parts in conflict, seeking that the Minister make a decision. Officers do not consider that the first option is practicable (or potentially legal) and as changes are only possible for changes of “minor effect or to correct a minor error”. The scale of changes required to remediate the issues staff have identified are not considered to be minor and therefore the recommended recourse is to reject in-part the recommendations and for the Minister to make a decision.

4.15 Council Officers have sought to develop an alternative recommendation for the Minister to consider. To summarise, the alternative recommendation:

4.15.1 Seeks that the Officer position is retained to ensure the independence of operative and PC14 pathways, reducing the potential for legal challenge, its complexity, and improving its function as a rule.

4.15.2 The Panel’s Chapter 14B approach (as described above) is rejected, instead utilising the existing Plan approach of ‘underlying zone’ provisions applying. This means that the degree of duplication across the Plan is reduced, given the Policy 3 only decision that the Council intends to make (i.e. not all urban residential zones will change because of this decision).

4.16 Providing a stated alternative is considered to be the most appropriate option when rejecting a recommendation and asking the Minister to decide. This is because it very much limits the Minister to two choices: either the Panel’s recommendation; or the Council’s alternative.

4.17 Reference should be made to the ‘Legal Considerations’ section of this report for further evaluation.

Considerations in making a decision

4.18 For the purposes of this report and a decision on the balance of the provisions to give effect to policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD, the Council must either accept or reject IHP recommendations and may provide an alternative recommendation to the Minister for any IHP recommendations that the Council rejects. The Council must refer to the Minister each rejected recommendation and the reasons for the Council rejecting it. The Council may also provide its alternative recommendation to the Minister^{^[4]}. Should an alternative recommendation proceed, the Council should state the alternative it is recommending as this directs to the Minister that the decision is only between what the IHP recommended and what the Council is recommending.

4.19 The Council must make that decision in a manner that is consistent with any iwi participation agreement, Mana Whakahono a Rohe or joint management agreement^{^[5]}. None of those are relevant here.

4.20 In making its accept/reject decision the Council must not consider any submission or other evidence unless it was made available to the IHP before the IHP issued its recommendation report^{^[6]}. That is why Officers are not advising on the merits of the IHP recommendations. The Officer Recommendations contained in this report to accept some IHP recommendations are solely based on the Mayor and Councillors not having raised any concerns with these IHP recommendations.

4.21 If the Council accepts IHP recommendations, there are no appeal rights^{^[7]} and the provisions then become operative in the District Plan^{^[8]}.

4.22 If the Council rejects the IHP recommendations the Minister’s decision on them is final. There are no appeal rights^{^[9]} and the provisions become operative in the District Plan after the Minister’s decision^{^[10]}.

4.23 Policy 3 of the NPS-UD (as amended by the Amendment Act) directs the enablement of building heights and density that are differentiated according to a hierarchy of commercial centre zonings, or proximity to those centres.

4.24 Policy 4 allows those requirements to be modified to reflect a qualifying matter, being those circumstances where the level of intensification directed by Policy 3 is inappropriate and allows for heights and densities to be reduced only to the extent necessary. Examples include coastal hazards and heritage.

4.25 In implementing Policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD, plan change 14 proposes greater heights and densities in and around the Central City and suburban centres with walkable distances used to inform the extent of areas enabled for higher densities. These are best expressed as catchments around each centre. Beyond the ‘catchments’, the application of MDRS zones areas as Medium Density Residential, enabling 3 houses per site up to 3 storeys, amongst other provisions.

4.26 On the basis that the catchments are the extent of the areas to implement the NPS-UD, decisions on these areas must be made by 20 December 2024 to satisfy the Minister’s expectations. The IHP has defined that all of the High Density Residential zone is a response to Policy 3 of the NPS-UD and that part of the Medium Density Residential zone is also part of this response (e.g. around Local Centre zones).

4.27 MDRS applies as a baseline within the catchments i.e. the starting point has been 3 storeys within a walkable distance of centres. Despite the indication that MDRS will become optional, there was not time for the IHP or the Council to remove the baseline of MDRS by December 2024. The Minister has also not extended timeframes to sufficiently provide for such an amendment.

4.28 Beyond implementing Policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD and MDRS, section 80E provides discretion for the Council to also include the following in its plan change –

(i) Provisions relating to financial contributions …

(ii) Provisions to enable papakāinga housing in the district

(iii) related provisions, including objectives, policies, rules, standards, and zones, that support or are consequential on—

(A) the MDRS; or

(B) policies 3, 4, and 5 of the NPS-UD, as applicable.

4.29 “Related provisions” in sub-clause (2) includes (amongst others) district-wide matters; earthworks; fencing: infrastructure; qualifying matters identified in accordance with section 77I or 77O; storm water management (including permeability and hydraulic neutrality), and subdivision of land.

4.30 The High Court has established that the limitations of such ‘related provisions’ are limited to being no more restrictive than status quo, as indeed any other control proposed through an Identification Planning Instrument (such as is PC14) is limited as such.

5. Deciding on policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD

5.1 Fundamentally, Policy 3 is about intensification within and around commercial centres and around rapid transit stops, which Christchurch is not considered to have. Policy 4 represents the qualifying matter response to reduce any intensification that Policy 3 otherwise prescribes. The following are those parts of policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD relevant to this decision (with underlined added for emphasis):

In relation to tier 1 urban environments, regional policy statements and district plans enable:

5.1.1 Policy 3 (a): in city centre zones, building heights and density of urban form to realise as much development capacity as possible, to maximise benefits of intensification;

5.1.2 Policy 3 (c)(ii): building heights of least 6 storeys within at least a walkable catchment of the following: the edge of city centre zones;

5.1.3 Policy 3 (d): within and adjacent to neighbourhood centre zones, local centre zones, and town centre zones (or equivalent), building heights and densities of urban form commensurate with the level of commercial activity and community services.

5.1.4 Policy 4: Regional policy statements and district plans applying to tier 1 urban environments modify the relevant building height or density requirements under Policy 3 only to the extent necessary (as specified in subpart 6) to accommodate a qualifying matter in that area.

5.2 To summarise, PC14 has sought to apply the above by determining the equivalent centre zones and rezoning them accordingly. The rules for each of these centre zones has consequently been evaluated in light of the new direction to either ‘realise as much development capacity as possible’ or provide a level of intensification ‘commensurate with the level of commercial activity and services’.

5.3 The latter, alongside the direction to apply ‘at least 6 storeys’ surrounding the City Centre Zone, had directed the degree to which other surrounding zones have been increased. By its very nature, this is primarily residential zones, but this also has an influence on other zones that fall in proximity to commercial centres, such as those that provide for schooling, tertiary education, hospitals, mixed-use and other commercial activities.

5.4 Walking catchments are the primary means that have determined the breadth of Policy 3 intensification around commercial centres. A walking catchment measures the distance able to be walked surrounding an area within public spaces, such as roads, walkways, and parks. It is generally accepted that every 400m equates to a 5-minute walking distance for the average person. Alternatively, modelling is able to be generated to calculate the time it would take to walk a set distance, or generate catchments based on set time limits, and could include dwell times for road crossings or other severance issues.

5.5 The Panel for PC14 accepted the distance measure for walkability (rather than time), however recommended against the origin point of catchments that officers had proposed (except for Shirley and Linwood, as they were satisfied with the concluding spatial extent). In most other cases, the Panel recommended that the origin point of walking catchments was taken from a central point of commercial centre zones, rather than taken from the edge of the commercial centre zone, as officers had proposed. Walking catchments for intensification consequently were reduced in the majority of cases as the ‘depth’ of commercial centre zoning was taken into consideration, reducing overall catchment size.

5.6 In considering the development provisions associated with intensification areas, it is important to remember that the MDRS (medium density residential standards) still form the baseline standards for all residential provisions. This is because while this decision is limiting itself to the requirements of policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD, PC14 is an Intensification Planning Instrument (IPI) that is directed by the RMA, which must simultaneously apply the MDRS to all ‘relevant residential zones’ (i.e. urban residential zones).

5.7 Therefore, while forthcoming changes to the RMA are anticipated to allow Councils to opt-out of the MDRS (subject to specific criteria), Council is presently required to apply standards accordingly. This means that the third phase of decision making on PC14 will be required to consider:

5.7.1 The spatial extent of medium density residential zone (i.e. how far out beyond Policy 3 walking catchments);

5.7.2 Residential hills zoning;

5.7.3 Low public transport accessibility area qualifying matter; and

5.7.4 Any other qualifying matter wholly or partly outside of a Policy 3 area not otherwise considered.

5.8 The optionality of applying the MDRS may also provide Council with greater flexibility in determining appropriate residential standards, such as the associated ‘three by three’ residential unit permitted activity, or the setting of recession planes and absolving the need to justify a Sunlight Access qualifying matter. Such allowances, however, will be subject to future legislation which is set to take effect from mid next year.

Previously circulated information and presentations

5.9 The following related memos/information were circulated to the meeting members:

Date	Subject
19 July 2024	Plan Change 14: preparing for decision making on panel recommendations
30 July 2024	Independent Hearings Panel Recommendations Report – Plan Change 14 Housing and Business Choices
31 July 2024	Independent Hearings Panel recommendations on PC14
2 August 2024	Updated IHP recommendations on PC14
9 August 2024	Plan Change 14
22 August 2024	Plan Change 14 decisions possible on 4 September

5.10 The following evidence summaries have been provided to Councillors and has been made available on the Big Tin Can:

Type	Subject
Policy 3 evidence	Riccarton, Papanui, Hornby building heights and zones
Qualifying matter	Airport noise influence area qualifying matter
Policy 3 evidence	Central City building heights
Qualifying matter	Daresbury heritage item qualifying matter
Qualifying matter	Heritage qualifying matters
Qualifying matter	Industrial interface qualifying matter
Qualifying matter	Imagery of Industrial Interface within Recommended Policy 3 areas
Qualifying matter	Radiocommunication pathways qualifying matters
Qualifying matter	Riccarton Bush Interface Area qualifying matter
MDRS/Policy 3 evidence	Social Impact Assessment, including housing affordability and Māori housing
Qualifying matter	Sunlight Access qualifying matter
Financial contribution	Financial contributions for tree canopy cover
Policy 3 evidence	Policy 3 walking catchments and associated residential intensification

5.11 The following related information session/workshops have taken place for the members of the meeting:

Date	Subject
6 August 2024	IHP Recommendations on PC14
13 August 2024	IHP Recommendations on PC14
20 August 2024	IHP Recommendations on PC14
28 August 2024	IHP Recommendations on PC14
3 September 2024	IHP Recommendations on PC14
29 October 2024	IHP Recommendations on PC14
6 November 2024	IHP Recommendations on PC14
26 November	IHP Recommendations on PC14

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

5.12 The following reasonably practicable options were considered and are assessed in this report:

5.12.1 Making the following decisions on 2 December 2024:

(a) Recommendations as per pages 1 to 12;

(b) Accepting all Panel recommendations regarding policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD and Financial Contributions, except the Officer recommendation regarding the residential pathways;

5.12.2 Deciding on all of plan change 14 on 2 December 2024, except the Officer recommendation regarding the residential pathways.

5.13 The following options were considered but ruled out:

5.13.1 Not making a decision on policy 3 areas until 2025. This is unlawful and does not accord with the Minister’s direction for decisions by 20 December 2024 to implement Policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

5.14 Preferred Option: Making accept/reject decisions on IHP recommendations for those provisions described on pages 1 to 12.

5.14.1 Option Description:

5.14.2 The majority of Panel recommendations are accepted for policy 3 areas, except where there is an alternative recommendation described by Officers or Elected Members.

5.14.3 Option Advantages

· It accords with the Minister’s direction to make a decision on policies 3 and 4 by 20 December 2024.

· It provides certainty regarding the result of the plan change.

· Improved certainty for developers and our community alike.

· It provides a clear alternative for the Minster to consider.

5.14.4 Option Disadvantages

· There is some uncertainty regarding areas where alternative recommendations are accepted, including the residential pathways approach.

· Uncertainty about ‘non-policy 3 areas’ remains.

5.15 Accepting all Panel recommendations on policies 3 and 4 and financial contributions, except the Officer recommendation regarding the residential pathways.

5.15.1 Option Description: There would be no Councillor alternative recommendations, leaving only the staff recommended alternative regarding the residential pathways.

5.15.2 Option Advantages

· It is simpler for the Council.

· It avoids further delay on the application of provisions, given rules are treated as operative if accepted.

· The functionality and clarity of the residential framework is able to be considered by the Minister.

5.15.3 Option Disadvantages

· There is no further opportunity for other alternatives to be considered by the Minister that may provide for a superior outcome.

· There remains some uncertainty on the how residential pathways would apply to the residential chapter.

5.16 Deciding on all of Plan Change 14 on 2 December 2024.

5.16.1 Option Description: This would decide on the full recommendation, incorporating the policies 3 and 4 decision alongside the MDRS decision to apply medium density zoning across urban residential areas. All associated qualifying matters and financial contributions would also be decided.

5.16.2 Option Advantages

· It is simpler for the Council.

· It avoids further delay and ambiguity on the plan change.

5.16.3 Option Disadvantages

· There is no further opportunity for other alternatives to be considered by the Minister that may provide for a superior outcome.

· Three residential pathways would apply across all urban residential zones (except where operative zones are retained for some qualifying matters), increasing complexity and litigation risk for the majority of resource consents processed by the city.

· There hasn’t been the opportunity to fully consider alternatives for areas outside of Policy 3 areas.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

5.17 The option criteria considered above include making decisions on IHP recommendations at the earliest reasonable time, improving certainty for people, and avoiding avoidable delays.

6. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option NPS-UD with alternatives	Option 2 NPS-UD with only alternative re. residential pathways	Option 3 All of Plan Change 14
Cost to Implement	Same costs to all 3 options. Future changes to RMA may result in additional costs of a plan change
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	Nil	Nil	Nil
Funding Source	Within existing budget for Planning	Within existing budget for Planning	Within existing budget for Planning
Funding Availability	Funded in LTP	Funded in LTP	Funded in LTP
Impact on Rates	No additional impact beyond LTP	No additional impact beyond LTP	No additional impact beyond LTP

7. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

7.1 The predominant risk with decisions are those which reject Panel recommendations, such as the Officer recommendation on the residential redraft and the various Councillor alternative recommendations. With each of these, there is a risk that the Minister may reject the Council’s recommendation and accept the Panel’s recommendation. This risk has been mitigated through ensuring that any alternative is appropriately worded and (where available) seeks to demonstrate that where an alternative is aligned with submissions. This ensures that any change is targeted, specific, and submissions in support (or otherwise) is evident, increasing the potential for the Minister’s acceptance.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

7.2 Statutory and/or delegated authority to undertake proposals in the report:

7.2.1 The Minister for Resource Management Reform and Housing has directed that the Council is to decide on only part of PC14 by 20 December 2024 and decide on the balance of PC14 by December 2025.

7.2.2 Central government’s indications are that it will be changing the RMA to make implementing the MDRS optional by mid-2025. The Council’s 2025 decisions on the balance of PC14 would be in that context.

7.3 Other Legal Implications:

7.3.1 The direction provided by the Panel in its recommendations and various minutes on the Residential Redraft is inconsistent and would not achieve the stated outcomes that the Panel intended the three pathways approach to achieve (particularly independence, but also clarity). As noted above, given the timeframe for making a Policy 3 decision, the Council is unable to seek further clarification from the Panel to resolve these inconsistencies, leaving two main options for seeking to resolve the inconsistencies. Neither option is without legal risk.

7.3.2 Option 1 is to rely on clauses 102(2) and 102(3) of the first schedule of the RMA to accept the Panel's recommendations but alter the Panel's proposed drafting as an alteration of "minor effect or to correct a minor error". However, this option carries fairly high risk of challenge because some changes staff propose to the Panel's provisions 14.2.e cannot be described as being of "minor effect or to correct a minor error". Staff changes will be altering the substantive meaning and effect of how the provisions provide for implementation of the pathways.

7.3.3 Option 2 is to accept one set of IHP recommendations (e.g. that the pathways are to be independent) and reject those IHP recommendations that are inconsistent with that first set of recommendations (e.g. reject provisions that remove pathway independence or make it unclear), and refer the rejected IHP recommendation(s) to the Minister with Council's alternative recommendation (e.g. provisions that make pathway independence clear). This option is problematic because the legislation does not anticipate there being inconsistent recommendations where Council might seek to accept one recommendation but reject the inconsistent one. Amongst other things, there is a lack of clarity about whether these recommendations would lead to provisions having legal effect (but not yet operative), or are deemed operative.

7.3.4 Judicial review risks cannot be discounted with either option, although (all other factors being equal) the risk of Option 1 is higher than Option 2. Pragmatically, the recommended approach for dealing with the IHP’s inconsistent recommendations is for Council to make an "accept and reject in part" decision coupled with Council's alternative recommendation to the Minister (explaining how it accepts and rejects IHP recommendations in part), then requesting the Minister to make a decision.

7.3.5 Other legal considerations are described throughout this report.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

7.4 The required decision:

7.4.1 Aligns with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework.

7.4.2 Is assessed as high significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the nature of the decision, the high level of interest to stakeholders and the public and influence on the urban form outcomes for Ōtautahi Christchurch.

7.4.3 Is consistent with the Council’s Plans and Policies.

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

7.6 Regulatory and Compliance

7.6.1 Activity: Strategic Planning and Resource Consents

· Level of Service: 9.5.1.6 Prepare plan changes to the District Plan to address issues and to implement national and regional direction, identified as a high priority by Council - Providing Council an annual update on progress with plan changes

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

7.7 The decisions in this report are of significant interest to communities affected. The effects of the plan change as recommended by the IHP on communities has been considered as part of recommendations on the submissions and evidence.

7.8 The decision affects all of the Community Board areas. The views of the Community Boards are expressed in their submissions and verbal presentation to the Independent Hearings Panel on Plan Change 14.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

7.9 The decision involves a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions.

7.10 The plan change identifies sites of cultural significance to Ngāi Tahu as a qualifying matter, where intensification is limited in order to maintain cultural values.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

7.11 The proposals in this report are unlikely to contribute significantly to adaptation to the impacts of climate change or emissions reductions.

7.12 The decision in this report is anticipated to contribute to adaptation to the impacts of climate change or emissions reductions in being a decision on intensification in and around centres to implement policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD. The benefits of this for emissions reduction are expressed in submissions and evidence to the IHP.

8. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

8.1 The Council will be required to correspond with Ministry officials on be behalf of the Minister for any alternative recommendations, including stating reasons, submissions and evidence in support of such recommendations. Staff will begin this work following the decision, with the target to have this submitted before the Christmas holiday period. Concurrently, staff will be working to make operative those parts of the decision that have been accepted, whilst also assisting consenting staff in the application of provisions in the interim period where some rules will be treated as operative.

8.2 The scale of changes to the District Plan as a result of this decision is considered significant and will take time to apply, especially considering the ‘in-part’ nature of the decision, as this focuses on the NPS-UD element of the proposal. Staff anticipate this will be completed in early February 2025, with a decision from the Minister to follow.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Attachment 1 - Officer Alternative Recommendation on Residential Pathways	24/2136992	30
b ⇩	Attachment 2 - Councillor alternative recommendation on PC14	24/2136993	31