GREATER CHRISTCHURCH URBAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
FRIDAY 13 SEPTEMBER 2013
AT 11AM
IN COMMITTEE ROOM 1, CIVIC OFFICES, 53 HEREFORD STREET
Committee: Urban Development Strategy Independent Chair Bill Wasley
Christchurch City Council Mayor Bob Parker, Councillors Sue Wells and Claudia Reid
Environment Canterbury Commissioners Tom Lambie, Peter Skelton and Rex Williams
Selwyn District Council Mayor Kelvin Coe, Councillors Lindsay Philps and Malcolm Lyall
Waimakariri District Council Mayor David Ayers, Councillors Jim Gerard and Dan Gordon
Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu Sir Mark Solomon Elizabeth Cunningham
New Zealand Transport Authority Jim Harland (Observer)
Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority Roger Sutton (Observer)
Implementation Manager Committee Adviser Keith Tallentire Warren Brixton DDI: 941-8045 DDI: 941-8439
INDEX
ITEM DESCRIPTION PAGE NO. NO.
1. APOLOGIES 1
2. DECLARATION OF INTEREST 1
3. CONFIRM PREVIOUS MINUTES: MEETING OF 14 DECEMBER 2012 1
4. MATTERS ARISING 1
5. UDS INTEGRATION AND ADVICE TO INCOMING COUNCILS 5
6. HOUSING MARKET ASSESSMENT AND INTEGRATED MODEL 15
7. UDS IMPLEMENTATION REPORT 21
1 GREATER CHRISTCHURCH URBAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE 13. 9. 2013
1. APOLOGIES
Nil.
2. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.
3. CONFIRM PREVIOUS MINUTES: MEETING OF 14 DECEMBER 2012
Attached.
It is recommended that the Committee confirm the minutes of its meeting on 14 December 2012.
4. MATTERS ARISING 2 3 UNCONFIRMED CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE GREATER CHRISTCHURCH URBAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE (UDSIC)
Held in the Council Chamber, Civic Building, Christchurch City Council, 53 Hereford Street
on Friday 14 December 2012 commencing at 9.30am
PRESENT: Urban Development Strategy (UDS) Independent Chair Bill Wasley
Christchurch City Council (CCC) Councillor Sue Wells
Environment Canterbury (ECan) Commissioner Rex Williams
Selwyn District Council Mayor Kelvin Coe and Councillors Malcolm Lyall and Lindsay Philps
Waimakariri District Council (WDC) Mayor David Ayers, Councillors
Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu (TRoNT) Wally Stone
New Zealand Transport Authority (NZTA) Jim Harland (Observer)
Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) Diane Turner (Observer on behalf of Roger Sutton)
1. APOLOGIES
Apologies were received and accepted from Mayor Bob Parker (CCC), Councillors Claudia Reid (CCC), Jim Gerard and Dan Gordon (WDC), Commissioners Tom Lambie and Peter Skelton (ECan), Mark Solomon (TRoNT) and Roger Sutton (CERA).
2. CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting on Friday 9 November 2012 were confirmed.
3. GREATER CHRISTCHURCH TRANSPORT STRATEGY – SIGN OFF.
It was noted that:
all partners have signed off the Greater Christchurch Transport Strategy (GCTS) the CCC have suggested changes to be included in the final version (refer Recommendation 2(a) below), copies of the document with these included as tracked changes were tabled at the meeting
4 GREATER CHRISTCHURCH URBAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE 9. 11. 2012 - 2 -
3. Cont’d
an amendment is required to the first priority on page 5, so that freight challenges are not emphasised over community outcomes (refer Recommendation 2(b) below).
On the motion of Mayor Kelvin Coe, seconded by Councillor Sue Wells, it was resolved to:
1) Endorse the Greater Christchurch Transport Statement as a key Urban Development Strategy transport implementation tool for a consistent, one-network approach to managing the transport system.
2) Agree that the following amendments be included in the final version of the Greater Christchurch Transport Strategy:
(a) changes from the Christchurch City Council meeting of 6 December 2012 (refer Attachment 3) (b) that the words following “Port access” be removed from the first bullet point of the Top Priorities listed on page 5.
3) Agree to make best endeavours to give effect to the intended direction of the Greater Christchurch Transport Strategy.
4) Note that the Greater Christchurch Transport Strategy will be reviewed annually.
5) Agree that Jim Harland (NZTA) be delegated authority to speak publically on behalf of the Committee.
The meeting closed at 9.45 am.
5
Report To: Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee Subject: UDS integration and advice to incoming Councils Report Author(s): Independent Chair and UDS Implementation Manager Meeting Date: 13 September 2013
1. PURPOSE OF REPORT
This report proposes the key matters that the Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee (UDSIC) consider conveying to UDS Partners1, especially incoming Councils following the local body elections in October 2013. It also identifies other actions that will help reinforce UDS integration across respective UDS Partner organisations.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 The Urban Development Strategy (UDS) Partnership is an enduring partnership established to coordinate growth management and quality of life initiatives across the Greater Christchurch area. Operating at governance, executive, and officer levels and with ongoing stakeholder and community support, it has provided a mechanism for collaboration over three Council triennium periods.
2.2 It has also provided a valuable template and arrangements for engagement with Government and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) in relation to earthquake recovery and the development of recovery programmes and plans.
2.3 Now entering its fourth triennial period this Committee can help ensure, in re‐ establishing the UDSIC joint committee, that UDS Partners continue to reinforce the integration of UDS matters within their individual governance and management processes. To this end, it is recommended that UDSIC provide advice and recommendations for Partner Councils to consider following local body elections in October this year.
3. UDSIC TERMS OF REFERENCE
3.1 The UDSIC is a joint committee pursuant to Section 30, Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002. The current UDSIC Terms of Reference are contained in Appendix V of the UDS and have remained unchanged since the adoption of that document in May 2007. The draft Land Use Recovery Plan (dLURP) Action 55 seeks to amend these Terms of Reference to provide for a stronger link to earthquake recovery and in particular implementation of the LURP.
1 UDS Partners are Environment Canterbury, Christchurch City Council, Selwyn District Council, Waimakariri District Council, the New Zealand Transport Agency, and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 1
6 3.2 Since 2007, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu (TRoNT) has also established stronger relationships with UDS Partners and are fully represented at UDSIC and associated management arrangements such as the Chief Executives Advisory Group (CEAG). Greater recognition of TRoNT engagement and participation within UDSIC Terms of Reference is therefore proposed.
3.3 At the meeting of this Committee on 11 May 2012 the role of Deputy Chair was established to act in the absence of the UDS Independent Chair and to act as a local spokesperson for the UDS Partnership when managing media requests and other engagements.
3.4 To incorporate these changes and ensure that this Committee is able to perform its purpose and has clear delegated authority in this regard, proposed revised UDSIC Terms of Reference are outlined in Attachment 1 to this report. If agreed by this Committee, and in re‐establishing the UDSIC, incoming Partner Councils would be asked to ratify the amended UDSIC Terms of Reference. Environment Canterbury and TRoNT would also be requested to formally endorse these changes, and as Observers on the Committee, support from the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) and CERA would be sought.
3.5 In addition, clause 30 (7) of Schedule 7 allows for local authorities establishing committees to resolve that a committee is not discharged at the point of the next election period. As an enduring Partnership with responsibility for overseeing the long term vision of the UDS this would seem an appropriate resolution to be made with regard to the UDSIC. It is therefore recommended such a resolution be made by incoming Councils when re‐establishing the UDSIC this time round.
4. UDSIC REPRESENTATION BY PARTNER COUNCILS
4.1 Since the establishment of the Recovery Strategy Advisory Committee (RSAC) by CERA as part of earthquake recovery governance arrangements, the UDSIC and RSAC have maintained identical representation. These two Committees, established under different legislation, perform slightly different roles but the matters for which they are concerned are inextricably linked. Recovery, strategic planning, urban development and growth management all impact the well‐being of Greater Christchurch communities and while they may entail different timeframes the decisions made as part of recovery will have legacy issues for the long term vision for the sub‐region as outlined in the UDS.
4.2 It is imperative therefore, that incoming Councils endeavour to nominate the same representatives to both committees and, in order to retain the knowledge and collegiality that exists within the Committee, maintain consistency in representation from the current membership wherever possible. Although not subject to local body elections Environment Canterbury, the NZTA, TRoNT and CERA are also requested to give similar regard to this matter when considering any change in representation.
5. UDSIC REPORTING TO PARTNER COUNCILS
5.1 The UDSIC provides a valuable governance committee for UDS matters however it is also important that UDS Partners embed UDS principles and awareness of UDS activity within their respective organisations and amongst all their members.
5.2 UDSIC should therefore encourage all UDS Partners but particularly incoming Councils to establish effective reporting mechanisms for future UDSIC meetings. As a minimum this should entail formal reporting of UDSIC minutes at respective Council meetings 2
7 (or Board meetings) and where necessary additional briefings and workshops on relevant matters. The UDS Independent Chair or Implementation Manager are available to be present at any Partner meetings to assist this process where necessary.
6. UDS FORUMS
6.1 Prior to the earthquakes the UDS had a Strategic Partners Forum (SPF) which provided stakeholder engagement on UDS implementation matters. In 2010 this Committee agreed that the SPF be restructured into an Implementation Agency Forum, Rūnanga Forum and Stakeholder Forum to better reflect the issues and roles of the different organisations represented. The events of 2010 and 2011 meant that this restructure was not finalised and the SPF has been in abeyance.
6.2 In re‐establishing any UDS forums consideration will need to be given to ensure they add value to engagement mechanisms already provided for through existing forums, maintain a strategic issue‐based focus and are managed to avoid adding to the level of consultation fatigue present in many communities and sectors.
6.3 dLURP Actions 52 and 53 do nevertheless require that a Housing Development Forum and a Business Land Forum be established to assist ongoing engagement and delivery of the LURP through provision of advice and information. A Strategic Implementation Forum is also signalled as part of the dLURP implementation (section 6.2) and it is envisaged that this will forum help pick up on the intent of the SPF reforms outlined in above. These Actions are supported by the UDS Partners as part of their final LURP endorsements that occurred during May of this year. Initial work on the establishment of such forums is underway and formal Terms of Reference will be reported to future meetings of this Committee for endorsement.
6.4 This Committee should encourage UDS Partners where appropriate to utilise such forums directly, and not solely for UDS‐initiated matters. This would be particularly important where issues arise within respective organisations or their communities which are likely to have resonance at a wider level, both geographically and organisationally.
7. REVIEW OF THE UDS
7.1 At the meeting of this Committee on 13 July 2012, it was agreed that a full review of the UDS would not occur during 2012/13 but that instead any immediate re‐ evaluation of the UDS was undertaken as part of the collaborative development of recovery programmes. Influences on an appropriate time for a full review were reported as being: . establishing a post‐earthquake evidence base for strategy review, including the data arising from the 2013 Census . greater understanding of LGA, RMA and other legislative reforms proposed by Government that could impact local government . availability of staff resources, including the timing of a Christchurch City Council District Plan review . development of a Transition Plan as required by the Recovery Strategy by April 2015
7.2 Earthquake recovery continues to be the focus across greater Christchurch and the development of the dLURP and the Natural Environment Recovery Programme (NERP) have enabled many of the principles of the UDS to be integrated with the short to medium‐term needs of recovery. 3
8 7.3 Given these developments, it is not considered appropriate or indeed achievable to consider a full review of the UDS during 2013/14. It will however be important for UDS Partners to plan for and appropriately resource such a review during this next triennial period (2013‐2016). The timeframe for a review should be first agreed by UDSIC together with the relevant project plan outlining the scope of such a review, and the timing of such a decision should allow sufficient time for Partner Councils to then consider the matter as part of their preparation of the relevant annual plan from which it would be funded as part of the agreed UDS Partnership funding arrangements.
8. UDS COMMUNICATIONS
8.1 UDS communications are primarily undertaken through periodic UDS newsletters, the UDS website, and through UDS media releases where appropriate. Reinforcing the integration of the UDS has also occurred through appropriate branding of UDS Partner publications with the UDS logo.
8.2 UDS Partners can support these UDS communications through the provision of timely and relevant material and through ongoing branding of their respective publications. Examples include structure plans, areas plans, issue‐based strategies and
8.3 It is also recommended that officials from CERA and local councils work with staff supporting UDS communications to establish clear messaging aimed at stakeholders and the wider public regarding the links between earthquake recovery and the longer term vision for the sub‐region as outlined in the UDS.
9. RECOMMENDATIONS
That the UDSIC: a. Recommend to the incoming Councils in Greater Christchurch, and the non‐ Council partners as appropriate, the following matters relating to UDS governance, integration and implementation: i. in re‐establishing the UDSIC joint committee incoming Councils pass a resolution, in line with clause 30 (7) of schedule 7 of the LGA 2002, to confirm that UDSIC is not discharged at the point of the next election period ii. when nominating representatives to the Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee that the same representatives be appointed to the Recovery Strategy Advisory Committee iii. consideration be given to inviting the UDS Independent Chair or UDS Implementation Manager to attend any Council briefings or workshops to maintain awareness of UDS matters amongst elected members, particularly as part of any new elected member induction b. Recommend for endorsement from all UDS Partners, the revised Terms of Reference for the UDSIC as outlined in Attachment 1 c. Recommend endorsement from all UDS Partners, to formally reporting the minutes of the UDSIC at the Council or Board meetings of their respective organisations d. Recommend that a full review of the UDS not occur during 2013/14 but request that UDS Partners plan for and appropriately resource such a review during this next triennial period (2013‐2016), the timeframe and relevant project plan defining review scope to be first agreed by UDSIC
4
9 e. Note the work underway to re‐establish appropriate UDS Forums and encourage all UDS Partners where appropriate, to utilise such forums directly, and not solely for UDS‐initiated matters f. Encourage all UDS Partners to support UDS communications through the provision of timely and relevant material, the use of the UDS logo on relevant UDS Partner publications and the development of clear UDS messaging for stakeholders and the public. g. Note that this report will be circulated to all partners to provide background to the advice and recommendations from UDSIC.
Bill Wasley – UDS Independent Chair Keith Tallentire – UDS Implementation Manager
5
10
ATTACHMENT 1
Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee (UDSIC) Existing Terms of Reference (2007)
1. Terms of Reference
A joint committee of the Christchurch City Council, Waimakariri District Council, Selwyn District Council, Canterbury Regional Council and Tangata Whenua be established to implement the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy and Action Plan.
The joint Strategy Implementation Committee be delegated authority to implement the Strategy Action Plan in accordance with the following functions:
Growth management leadership Overseeing the implementation of the Strategy Ensuring organisation systems and resources support the Strategy implementation Taking responsibility for progressing those actions specifically allocated to the Strategy Implementation Committee in the Strategy and ensuring implementation occurs Monitoring and reporting progress against milestones Over viewing the management of the risks identified in implementation Reviewing and recommending adjustments to the Strategy Identifying and resolving any consultation inconsistencies between the Strategy and subsequent public consultation processes of the partner councils Facilitating consultation with the community Establishing the Strategic Partners Forum Selecting and appointing an Independent Chairman, appointing a Strategy Implementation Advisor after considering recommendations from the Chief Executives Advisory Group Implementing a Memorandum of Understanding as adopted by the Committee to provide a basis for developing working relationships and the resolution of any conflict
2. Membership
That representation be comprised of three representatives as appointed by the contributing authorities, including the Mayors and Regional Council Chairman, and a Tangata Whenua representative. That an Independent Chairman (non elected member), to be appointed by the Committee, chair the Committee on the recommendation of the Mayors and Regional Chair. That the standing membership be limited to 14 members (including Independent Chair), but with the power to co‐opt up to a maximum of two additional non‐voting members from the Strategic Partner Forum where required to ensure effective UDS implementation.
UDS IC Terms of Reference – 2007 1 11
3. Purpose
The role of the Strategy Implementation Committee is to:
Ensure that the statements of intent of council owned companies are aligned to reflect the strategic directions and outcomes of the Strategy. Oversee the implementation of the Strategy, in particular the actions for the next 3 years. Take responsibility for progressing those actions specifically allocated to the “UDS Implementation Committee” in the Strategy and making sure the implementation does occur. The challenges here should not be under estimated. It involves in many situations, a different way of working and not just doing one’s own thing. Monitor progress against milestones. Review and adjust the Strategy if circumstances change. Identify and resolve any consultation inconsistencies between the Strategy and subsequent public consultation processes of the partner councils. Implement actions through partner council policy instruments such as the proposed changes to the Regional Policy Statement (Area), Regional and District Plans, LTCCPs, Triennial agreements, the RLTS Review (area) and partnerships between local government and other bodies such as health and education service providers. Co‐ordinate actions across the implementation agencies as needed to avoid inconsistencies. Partner councils should align with the Strategy, unless aspects are re‐negotiated and agreed through the UDSIC.
4. Committee Characteristics
Monthly meetings for 18 months then bimonthly Serviced by a partner Council to be recommended by Chief Executives Advisory Group Formal committee under Local Government Act 2002, (Section 30 Schedule 7).
5. Focus and Approaches
Update the UDS Implementation Plan every third year as a basis for detailed growth management through agency plans (preceding the LTCCP). Inevitably there will be changes in the operating climate for growth management. This could include changed partner Council priorities or government policy changes. For the implementation of all actions, develop appropriate methods and processes for community engagement that take into account the principles of collaboration, and of developing awareness and understanding of issues as a foundation for agreement, commitment and action. Translate into each action the continuing high levels of community awareness of growth management issues generated from the Strategy. This reflects the importance of community engagement in Strategy implementation. It helps enable the needs of special interest groups, such as elders and disabled, to be taken into account in Actions. Establish protocols to ensure that implementation of Strategy actions are consistent with the agreed Communications Strategy.
UDS IC Terms of Reference – 2007 2 12
Individual actions should all contribute to the wider aims of the Strategy and not detract from key principles of communication and collaboration e.g. consistent use of branding. As sufficient powers of delegation to facilitate the Strategy, provide advice to the partner councils and other implementation agencies, sponsor a monitoring and review framework and focus on implementation within a wider Greater Christchurch settlement pattern. The UDSIC has to have sufficient powers and vision to operate in a growth management leadership and advocacy role.
UDS IC Terms of Reference – 2007 3 13
Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee (UDSIC) Proposed Revised Terms of Reference (2013)
1. Purpose
A joint committee of the Christchurch City Council, Waimakariri District Council, Selwyn District Council and Canterbury Regional Council, with representation from tangata whenua and other agencies, established to oversee implementation of the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy (UDS) and ensure integration within earthquake recovery activity and related strategies and plans, including:
Providing clear and united leadership in delivering the UDS vision and principles Promoting integration with earthquake recovery plans and programmes and ensuring the implementation of the Land Use Recovery Plan (LURP) and Natural Environment Recovery Programme (NERP) Supporting the delivery of aligned tangata whenua objectives as outlined in Ngāi Tahu 2025 and the Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan 2013
A formal joint committee pursuant to the Local Government Act 2002, (Section 30 Schedule 7). This Committee is not discharged at the point of the next election period (in line with clause 30 (7) of schedule 7).
2. Membership
Three representatives each as appointed by the partner territorial and regional authorities and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, including their respective Mayors, Regional Council Chair and Kaiwhakahaere.
The Chief Executive of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) and the Regional Director of the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) as observers with speaking rights but in a non‐voting capacity.
An Independent Chair (non‐elected member), appointed by the Committee on the recommendation of the Mayors and Regional Chair.
The standing voting membership be limited to 16 members (including Independent Chair), but with the power to co‐opt up to a maximum of two additional non‐voting members where required to ensure effective implementation.
3. Meeting Frequency
Bi‐monthly, or as necessary and determined by the Independent Chair
UDS IC Terms of Reference – 2007 4 14
The UDS Implementation Committee is delegated authority in accordance with the following functions in support of its overall purpose:
General Overseeing implementation of the UDS, LURP and NERP and associated documents, such as the Greater Christchurch Transport Statement Ensuring organisational systems and resources support implementation Monitoring and reporting progress against actions and milestones Managing any risks identified in implementation Identifying and resolving any implementation inconsistencies arising from partner consultation processes Facilitating consultation and establishing forums as necessary to support implementation and review Periodically reviewing and recommending any adjustments to the UDS, LURP and NERP
Specific Selecting and appointing an Independent Chair and Deputy Chair Taking responsibility for implementing any actions specifically allocated to the Committee Implementing a Memorandum of Understanding, as adopted by the Committee for each triennial period, to provide maintain partnership relationships and provide for the resolution of any conflict Advocate for statements of intent of council owned companies to be aligned to implementation of the UDS, LURP and NERP where appropriate. Champion integration and implementation through partner strategies, programmes, pland and policy instruments (including the Regional Policy Statement, Regional and District Plans, Long Term Plans (LTPs), Annual Plans, and triennial agreements) and through partnerships with other sectors such as health, education and business. Establish protocols to ensure that implementation, where necessary, is consistent, collaborative and/or coordinated to achieve optimal outcomes. Making submissions, as appropriate, on Government proposals and other initiatives relevant to the implementation of the UDS, LURP and NERP
UDS IC Terms of Reference – 2007 5 15
Report To: Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee Subject: Housing Market Assessment and Integrated Model Report Author(s): UDS Implementation Manager Meeting Date: 13 September 2013
1. PURPOSE OF REPORT
This report provides an overview of two initiatives which can be utilised as part of ongoing Urban Development Strategy (UDS) and Land Use Recovery Plan (LURP) implementation. These are a Housing Market Assessment research report (HMA) and an Integrated Model (IM), both have been developed in collaboration with the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) and other government departments.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 Understanding the housing market, including current pressures and future needs, is an important component of UDS and LURP implementation and for associated recovery programme activity. As well as ensuring the sufficient supply of land for housing, UDS Partners, CERA and Government will need to have a clear idea of the different housing market segments (demographics, tenure, types, etc) and the likely consequences of any particular proposed policy response.
2.2 Given the complexity of the housing market establishing this picture is difficult enough in typical metropolitan area. The impacts of the earthquakes on the housing market both exacerbate the need for a good evidence base but also the complexity and uncertainties which exist over the short to medium term.
3. HOUSING MARKET ASSESSMENT
3.1 As part of the development of the draft LURP, Environment Canterbury (on behalf of the UDS Partners), CERA and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) commissioned a Housing Market Assessment. Similar exercises have been undertaken elsewhere, most recently in Dunedin, but these have predominantly focused on social housing needs.
3.2 Through detailed data analysis this Greater Christchurch HMA provides useful long term trend data and post‐earthquake changes on such issues as: . Market demand . Housing supply . Supply/demand balance . Housing stock and market trends . Housing affordability 1
16
3.3 The HMA was completed as a final report in August 2013 and highlights include: . likely short term demand pressures due to households that have to move while their dwelling is repaired/rebuilt and the potential additional workforce requiring accommodation . around 7000 households receiving accommodation assistance from insurers and a further 1000 from the Government’s Temporary Accommodation Allowance . consents are now approaching the levels experienced during the last peak in 2007 . Selwyn and Waimakariri are experiencing greater percentage of development than historical trends . there is significant capacity for new dwellings in greenfield areas . limited number of new low cost dwellings being built, declining home ownership rates and increasing rents . potential short term bubble in housing and rental prices
3.4 It is recommended that this Committee endorse the HMA research report and that it be circulated to key stakeholders and made publicly available through the UDS website. Release of the report would be undertaken through coordinated communications amongst the funding partners.
4. INTEGRATED MODEL
4.1 UDS development and implementation has been supported by a Household Growth Model (HGM) since its inception. Data is derived from Statistics NZ population projections and given spatial context through integration with identified Greenfield areas and intensification targets as set out in the UDS, RPS and more recently the draft LURP.
4.2 The earthquakes necessitated additional modelling work, led by CERA, to understand the likely additional influx of a temporary workforce and the impacts of the residential repair and rebuild programme on the housing market.
4.3 Due to the inter‐relationships of these issues the three separate models were combined to produce the Integrated Model late last year. A summary schematic outlining the IM is included as Attachment 1 to this report.
4.4 Work is currently underway to update the data underlying the Model and make some refinements based on feedback from contributing agencies and monitoring of actual activity rather than initial modelled assumptions.
5. USING THE HMA AND INTEGRATED MODEL
5.1 The HMA represents a valuable information source when understanding pre‐ and post‐earthquake trends in relation to the housing market. The Integrated Model is a useful tool to understand the likely interactions and feedbacks which exist within the housing market.
5.2 Both the HMA and IM can assist the development and testing of proposed policy responses which might be being considered to enable optimal outcomes for a range of accommodation needs including: . Temporary workforce accommodation . Residents requiring temporary accommodation during repair and rebuild activity 2
17 . Residents displaced from the residential red zone requiring new housing . New households arising from the existing population . New households arising from migration (internal and international)
5.3 Clearly neither initiative represents a crystal ball on future needs or the exact consequence of any policy response and so they need to be utilised circumspectly. It will also be important to recalibrate the IM and its supporting models periodically as monitoring of events and trends helps to provide greater certainty in what is currently such a dynamic environment.
6. NEXT STEPS AND WORK ALREADY UNDERWAY
6.1 As discussed, jointly communicating these initiatives with wider stakeholders will be important to assist understanding and support decision‐making.
6.2 The HMA and IM are already assisting with LURP implementation and associated work including the CCC District Plan review and cross‐agency work on housing affordability.
6.3 The IM now has an established officer group to ensure coordination and collaboration regarding ongoing updates, monitoring and model improvements.
6.4 As the results of the 2013 Census are released, and proposed policy responses are developed to address identified needs within the housing market, further updates can be provided to this Committee.
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
That the UDSIC: a. Endorse the 2013 Housing Market Assessment research report for circulation to key stakeholders and public release b. Note the current work to update and refine the Integrated Model.
3
18 19 Sample IHGM Outputs Integrated Household Growth Model (IHGM)
What is the Integrated Household Growth How Does the IHGM work? What Is the Rationale of the IHGM? The IHGM – A Simplified View How Can IHGM Outputs be Used? Model (IHGM)? SUMMARY IHGM Outputs and Options Can Help The IHGM rationale is to: Inform the Following: • A model that can be used to inform policy and The IHGM amalgamates output from three models: Sample outputs using known inputs show a planning to enable best delivery of recovery 1. Short-term Housing Model Recognise key economic & social processes possible range of initiatives operating in post-earthquake economy / 2. Temporary Workforce (TWF) Model Scale of Housing Repair scenarios for ‘Resident community Housing Shortfall’ (fig 1) 3. Household Growth Model & Rebuild Task • A tool to test and evaluate assumptions, and‘Temporary Workforce unknown variables and possible actions Outputs from each model are dependent on a Understand critical inter-actions and feedbacks Accomodation Needs’ series of inputs and assumptions. (fig 2). General: A Primer On Models Assemble relevant information from the input models Workforce Requirement WHAT IS A MODEL? (External & BAU) Build a structure to replicate key processes, “A representation of reality.” Input Examples inter-relationships & feedbacks Availability of private dwellings for TWF A range of outputs A model is a simplified framework or ‘simulation’ that depicts Allow for cumulative effects over time provides for uncertainly in OUTPUT: Available Workforce potential future states based on selected variables and Availability of boarding for TWF inputs. assumptions/relationships that link them together. Examine or test for multiple unknowns, together OUTPUT: Updated Temporary dwellings (n) available Provide useful information and insights for end household Estimate of users projections OUTPUT: Recovery time period total Dwelling Repairs & Rebuilds What can a Model be used for? workforce How Should IHGM outputs be treated? New supply Estimate of Underway & Completed Size of TWF additional to construction required for housing Note that these outputs A model can be used to evaluate the potential impacts of context infrastructure needs & are SAMPLES using known decisions/assumptions and therefore inform strategic decision- Availability of Canterbury workforce for recovery Users need to be aware that the model provides ,commercial shortfall data at a fixed point in making. potential scenarios based on the information used as New demand time. In operation, model and housing through time Total Workforce Required for Commercial accommodation re-build amount & inputs; Model outputs are dependent on good inputs. context outputs will evolve as A model is a tool to help decision making, rather than a ‘black rebuilds Repair/Rebuild at any given time timing through time inputs improve over time. box’ that provides hard and fast answers. While some inputs will have more certainty than others Changed (e.g. number of building consents issued), other inputs Departure from Red Zone location (e.g. current population and location) are unknown and What are some of the caveats associated with using preferences Population growth and household formation rely on estimates. Workforce Accomodation models? (Private, Commercial & Temporary) Workforce productivity and retention Outputs should therefore be considered provisional, The efficacy of a model is dependent on the variables and relationships rather than definitive ‘predictions’. selected as inputs by users. IRD/Stats NZ Data (Linked Employer Employee (n.b.- ‘outlier’ or unknown variables can create impacts that may not While outputs will be useful, these will not be the only be captured by models – e.g. the global financial crisis) Data, building consents) source of analysis used to advise Ministers etc. Dwelling Estate & Capacity Users need to have a good idea of where the input data came from and its quality.
If you think the IHGM can help you, please contact:
INPUTS: Data, Information, Testing of Outputs against Observed Tim Wilson John Crequer Real-World Events: Manager Monitoring & Evaluation Senior Advisor Statistics CERA Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority Assumptions Results Feed Back into Model as Learnings P: 0064-3-3542678 M:022 175 2982 P: 0064-3-3542685 M:027 622 9870
Household Growth Model Temporary Workforce Model Short-Term Housing Model E:[email protected] E:[email protected] 20 21
Report To: Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee (UDSIC) Subject: UDS Implementation Report Report Authors: UDS Independent Chair and UDS Implementation Manager Meeting Date: 13 September 2013
1. PURPOSE OF REPORT
This report provides an update to the Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee (UDSIC) on Urban Development Strategy (UDS) implementation activities, in addition to those which are the subject of separate reports in the Committee’s 13 September 2013 agenda.
2. GOVERNANCE 2.1 End of Triennium This triennium period is now coming to an end and has covered three years of unprecedented events. UDS Partnership unity and the shared vision for greater Christchurch encapsulated by the UDS has greatly assisted the transition from earthquake response to recovery planning and implementation. The UDS governance structures have also provided a valuable template and arrangements for engagement with Government and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA). Entering a fourth triennial period the Partnership has the ability to support the implementation of initiatives which can make a step change in the quality of life experienced in greater Christchurch and go a long way to realising the long term UDS vision. To reinforce the benefits of the collaborative nature of the Partnership work is underway to recognise this within future triennial agreements. Partner Mayors are encouraged to support such an inclusion in the final Triennial Agreement to be presented to their respective Councils.
2.2 UDSIC representation The strength of the Partnership is highlighted by ability of this Committee to welcome new representatives and maintain momentum regarding UDS implementation. This will be particularly important as we move into the next triennial period with a number of long serving Committee representatives not standing for re‐election and so not continuing as UDSIC representatives. It is recommended that this Committee therefore acknowledge the contributions of Mayor Bob Parker, Cllr Sue Wells and Cllr Lindsay Philps.
2.3 UDS arrangements over the election period During the election interregnum it is important that the UDS Independent Chair and UDS Implementation Manager continue to act on matters which support UDS implementation. 1
22 It is recommended that the UDS Independent Chair be delegated responsibility for progressing where appropriate any matters covered by the Terms of Reference of this Committee and that such actions be reported back to this Committee for endorsement at its first meeting of the next triennium. In so doing, the UDS Independent Chair will liaise with UDS Partner Chief Executives.
2.4 Meetings of the UDSIC This Committee has a scheduled meeting for 11 October 2013, however given the upcoming elections it is recommended that this meeting be cancelled. Nevertheless, there are important matters for this Committee to consider before the end of the calendar year so it is recommended that as part of new governance arrangement for incoming Councils that a meeting of this Committee be scheduled for late November or early December.
3. IMPLEMENTATION 3.1 Greater Christchurch Transport Statement Update The Greater Christchurch Transport Statement (GCTS) was endorsed by this Committee at its meeting in December 2012. The GCTS provides provides the overarching transport framework to enable a consistent, integrated approach to planning, prioritising, implementing and managing the transport system using a “one‐ network” approach. It was developed in partnership between the UDS partners, CERA, Lyttelton Port of Christchurch, Christchurch International Airport, Kiwirail and Ministry of Transport. Attachment 1 to this report updates this Committee on work being undertaken in relation to the GCTS Action Plan.
4. GOVERNMENT REFORMS 4.1 RMA reform proposals 2013 Environment Minister Amy Adams recently unveiled the next phase of the Government's plan to revamp the resource management scheme. The Resource Management Reform Package 2013, follows the release of the February 2013 Discussion Document and supplements the Resource Management Reform Bill 2012, which is currently before the Select Committee. The Government propose to make a number of amendments to the Resource Management Act 1991 ("RMA") to improve the planning and consenting processes, and to provide for greater national consistency. The Reform Package 2013 will become a Resource Management Reform Bill to be introduced in 2013. A summary of the proposals is included as Attachment 2 to this report. 4.2 Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill This Bill was introduced in Parliament in May 2013 and has just completed its third reading and will come into effect on 16 September, having prior been the subject of a Select Committee hearing which received submissions. A summary of the Bill produced by Wynn Williams is included as Attachment 3 to this report. No significant changes were made as part of the second reading. Whilst the Auckland Accord is the first under the Bill similar arrangements could be progressed in other NZ cities. Submissions included those made by Christchurch City Council, Waimakariri District Council and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and are available on request.
2
23 4.3 DIA development contributions review A discussion paper in relation to this review was released in February 2013 by the Department of Internal Affairs. In August, Cabinet subsequently agreed to a number of the changes proposed in the discussion paper and these will be included into a Local Government Reform Bill that is proposed to be introduced by the end of 2013. The six main areas of change to be implemented, as stated in the 8 August Cabinet paper include: . introducing new purpose and principles provisions into the LGA 2002 . clarifying and narrowing the range of infrastructure that can be financed by development contributions . improving the transparency of territorial authorities’ development contribution policies . encouraging greater private provision of infrastructure through the use of development agreements . introducing a development contributions objection process with decisions made by independent decision makers (development contribution commissioners) . clarifying legislative provisions to make them more workable and easier to understand These changes will be supported by updated and enhanced non‐legislative guidance that draws on good practice from within local government and property development sectors Submissions included those made by each of the UDS Partner local authorities and are available on request. 4.4 Local Government reform for infrastructure planning Local Government Minister Chris Tremain recently announced changes that will ensure councils undertake longer‐term infrastructure planning, while streamlining other planning requirements. Changes follow the release of a report by the Local Government Infrastructure Efficiency Expert Advisory Group and include measures including: . making it mandatory for local councils to undertake strategic asset management planning, incorporating 30 year infrastructure strategies into long term plans . Councils will need to disclose the value of the insurance cover they hold, any financial risk sharing arrangements, and any self‐insurance schemes . streamlining annual plans and removing the need to re‐consult on matters that have already been consulted on . introducing streamlined, focused consultation documents rather than basing public consultation on technical and overly detailed documents . providing greater flexibility about methods and frequency of consultation The announcement links to the Government eight point reform programme for local government outlined in March 2012 and is part of the Government’s broader programme for building a more productive, competitive economy and better public services.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the Committee: a. Note the Urban Development Strategy implementation report from the UDS Independent Chair and UDS Implementation Manager. b. That Mayor Bob Parker, Cr Sue Wells and Cr Lindsay Philps be thanked for their respective contributions to UDS development and implementation including acknowledgement of their commitment to the collaborative and partnership approaches undertaken. 3
24 c. That the Independent Chair be delegated authority until the first meeting of the UDSIC in the new triennium, to act on any matters which support UDS implementation and cannot wait until that first meeting, with any liaison to occur as appropriate, with UDS partner Chief Executives.
Bill Wasley ‐ Independent Chair Keith Tallentire – UDS Implementation Manager
4
25
GCTS Priorities - Progress Report, September 2013
Issues/Constraints/Opportunities Outcome Lead Agency Supporting Agency Progress update at 1 September 2013
Access to Lyttelton Port of Christchurch Journey, Environment, NZTA CCC, Kiwirail, LPC A draft report for comment will be made available this month. Safety
Re-open Evans Pass and Sumner Road for over-dimension and hazardous Journey, Environment, CCC NZTA, LPC Geotech work continues. $ in CCC three year plan. Programme continues to work towards opening the road. goods movement Safety Access to Port to Access
Port repair and development Journey, Environment, LPC CCC, Ecan Planning for port reinstatement and development is proceeding. Preparation for consenting underway. Works Safety on Cashin Quay and Lyttelton Container Terminal start late 2013. Development of integrated Lyttelton management plan for anticipated Journey, Environment, CCC/LPC NZTA, Kiwirail See Access to Lyttelton note above freight growth and integration with town centre, pedestrian needs, Safety connections to water
Protect Brougham St freight corridor, considering abutting land-use Journey, Environment, NZTA CCC, Kiwirail, LPC Network Management Plan finalised. Brougham St Optimisation Study progressing well and on schedule. Safety Options have been identified for testing.
Improve access to Middelton railyard Journey CCC Kiwirail, NZTA No improvements planned. Temporary traffic management for road works reducing level of service.
Public transport network operation & growth model to provide transport Journey Ecan CCC, NZTA, CERA Stage 3 hubs and spokes design initiated. PT working group ongoing. PT steering group to be established to co- choice ordinate public transport package delivery. $91m PT package agreed and announced July. CC bus interchange detailed design brief complete. Stage 2 monitoring ongoing. growth Develop PT interchanges Journey Environment CCC Ecan, NZTA Improvements completed at Northlands. Other improvements being identified in PT Package discussions - and detailed consideration of suburban interchange option for Riccarton underway between CCC and ECan.
Develop PT priority measures Journey CCC Ecan, NZTA Critical routes identified by ECan. No specific improvement plans. Riccarton Road corridor due to be investigated in detail from mid 2013.
Investigate and protect future public transport options Journey Ecan CCC, NZTA, SDC, ILM workshops held. CEAG update provided 28 August. ILM 1&2 workshops completed. Consultant to be Public transport operation and WDC engaged to review work completed to date to identify any gaps in understanding and any need to undertake further work to inform further decision making (e.g. land protection).
Western Corridor and freight growth requirements and opportunity Journey NZTA CCC, CIAL, Kiwirail, Avonhead to Harewood NoR lodged with CCC in July. LPC Airport access Journey NZTA CCC, CIAL Left turn into Dakota Park operational. Other access locations continue to operations with some congestion at Western peak times. Progressing NoR for Memorial Interchange. Inter-modal road / rail facilities and railyard repairs Journey Kiwirail NZTA, CCC, SDC, Intermodal facility requirements will be informed by the GCTS freight study (see below). Rail yard repairs are WDC, CIAL ongoing and remain cognisant of GCTS requirements. Corridor/Airport Future freight opportunities Journey Environment NZTA CIAL, LPC, Kiwirail, CGTS freight study has now been commissioned and client inception briefing held. Draft report draft expected CCC, MoT, SDC, in December 2013. WDC
Northern and southern access & future growth areas Journey NZTA CCC, WDC, SDC, CSM2 draft decision due in September. Final decision in November. Western Belfast Bypass NoR being Ecan prepared. Cranford Street upgrade investigation completed and likely lodged in September.
Northern growth areas Journey Environment CCC, WDC NZTA, Ecan Project brief developed to review Northern transport package. Funding application has been approved by NZTA (May 2013). Project scope to be informed by Stage 0 ILM Process. WDC - The project to build a new arterial road from the Ohoka Road/Island Road intersection to Butchers Road including improvements to the Ohoka Road/Island Road intersection is well advanced with property purchase nearing completion, a detailed scheme plan completed and a preferred contractor engaged. It is expected that work could commence later in the year. The design of the new Ashley Bridge is well advanced and a shortlist of contractors has been selected. Nth/Sth Access/Growth Nth/Sth Construction is planned to commence in January 2014.
South-west growth areas Journey Environment CCC, SDC NZTA, ECan Stage A of Study Needs Review complete (Abley / SKM). 13 Key Issues transport issues identifed for south west of Christchurch including Selwyn. These form basis of further response through UDS and GCTS engagement. Draft Action plan to be endorsed by UDS TG / GCTS Group (Sept 2013). Stage 2 option of Interim SW Network Management / Improvement Plan to be recommended to GCTS Steering Group. Wigram - Magdala Link NOR Hearing held Aug 2013 - awaiting Commissioner's recommendations.
Central City integration with wider strategic networks Journey, Environment, Cera CCC, Ecan, NZTA Ongoing liaison between CERA, CCC, Ecan and NZTA on wider road and cycling links, and public transport Safety package to support Regional Public Transport Plan.
Develop transport system to support the Christchurch Central Recovery Journey, Environment, Cera CCC, Ecan, NZTA Recommended amendments for An Accessible City provisionally approved by Minister, subject to discussion at Plan - longer term Safety Cabinet in September. Planning and development of design guidelines, network concepts plans, parking Central City Central management plan and implementation plan underway with CCC. Bus interchange detail brief complete. First phase transport projects identified in Crown/CCC cost sharing agreement. Funding plan being developed with CCC/Crown and NZTA.
Develop transport system to support the Christchurch Central Recovery Journey, Environment, CTOC Cera, CCC, NZTA, CTOC A3 monthly report being generated and available here Plan - short term Safety Ecan http://www.transportforchristchurch.govt.nz/christchurch-transport-operations-centre-monthly-report/ Bluetooth monitoring system operative for one month with initial data avaiable. Project to increase capability of the bluetooth system underway. CTOC plans to develop this monitoring report at a city wide rather than just Central City level. CTOC (CCC, NZTA) are working with CERA and SCIRT are others to align forward work programmes using the LINZ Spatial Data Information tool. CTOC have established a joint Transport Impact Minimisation group with CERA and SCIRT representation to identify critical programme clashes and impacts on travellors. 26
Resource Management ‐ Summary of Reform Proposals 2013
Section Initiative Description Responsibility Timeframe Improving resource National planning template To be developed for all RMA plans to MfE (with MoC, and Template within two years of management planning standardise planning documents while allowing input including from enactment for specific local issues to addressed through LGNZ and councils) locally‐developed plan content Single resource management plan Councils must compile all content from their Councils Councils implement relevant regional policy statement and regional standardised format within one and district plans into a single planning year of template enactment document (using the template) Full transformation to template direction within five years Council planning agreement Sets high‐level framework for how councils will Councils Within six months of enactment produce the single resource management plan Faster resolution of Environment Mandatory for all parties to enter into pre‐ Parties to appeals Upon enactment Court hearings hearing mediation Māori participation Require councils to seek and have particular Councils Upon enactment regard to the advice of iwi/hapū across all planning pathways Hearing/review panels to include members with Councils Upon enactment understanding of tikanga and perspectives of local iwi/hapū Councils required to invite iwi/hapū to enter Councils Invite within two months of into collaboration agreement council planning agreement National consistency RMA principles (sections 6 and 7) Current sections 6 and 7 to be merged into one Part of RM Reform Bill Upon enactment (except for and guidance list of matters of national importance (with new requirement for councils to some matters deleted, revised or added) specify outstanding natural features and landscapes) New section 7 created to set clear expectations Part of RM Reform Bill Upon enactment of best practice approaches, including ensuring reasonable balance between public and private interests within decision‐making National policy statements and More direction on when and how such tools can Part of RM Reform Bill Upon enactment (apart from a national environmental standards be used list of issues which require national direction)
5
27 Efficient and effective Providing more proportionality New 10‐day consent process option for simple Councils Still to be determined resource consents and straight forward projects such as residential alterations New tool allowing councils to exempt projects Councils Still to be determined from needing consents for technical/marginal rule breaches but with very minor effects Certainty around time and cost Councils to publish a list of fixed fees for many Councils Still to be determined consent application types and report on what any additional costs might be Changes to reduce cost and complexity of EPA EPA Still to be determined processing of applications Clearer rights and responsibilities Amendments to submissions and appeals Relevant parties Still to be determined processes, including definition of ‘affected party’, limiting submissions on notified applications to the reasons and effects as stated in notifications, and enabling objections on some decisions/conditions to an independent commissioner as an alternative to appeals Changes to Environment Court appeal Relevant parties Still to be determined processes such as use of judicial conferences, alternative dispute resolution and powers of Judges to sit alone Incentivising plan making Change to the notification test to assess Councils Still to be determined applications against plan policies and objectives before considering environmental effects Certainty around content of Conditions applied to a consent must be Councils Still to be determined consent conditions directly connected to plan provisions breached, adverse effects or agreed by applicant Council performance Monitoring delivery of functions Including measures such as timeliness, cost and Councils To be developed over next and duties overall user satisfaction, and performance twelve months against indicators Central government intervention Circumstances for intervention will be clarified Minister Upon enactment powers including on process, plan content and where requested for reasons of urgency Freshwater reforms Freshwater reform 2013 and Details contained in previous announcements various Various beyond
6
28 Other matters Housing affordability New matter in section 6 regarding effective Councils Upon enactment functioning of the built environment (including land availability) linked to change to section 30 to ensure a minimum 10 year zoned capacity Reversal of presumption for Enables subdivision to be undertaken unless it Councils Upon enactment subdivision contravenes a NES, plan rule or resource consent Hazardous substances and new Explicit council functions to be removed as best Councils Upon enactment organisms managed through EPA but councils still able to use land use controls to avoid hazardous substance events
7
29 30 31
HOUSING ACCORDS AND SPECIAL HOUSING AREAS BILL ______
The Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill was introduced in Parliament on 16 May 2013. A very short period of consultation was allowed, with submissions to the Select Committee due on 30 May 2013. The purpose of the Bill is to enhance housing affordability by facilitating an increase in land and housing supply in regions or districts with significant housing affordability or supply issues. This is to be achieved through the implementation of the following concepts: 1. Scheduled regions and districts; 2. Housing accords; 3. Special housing areas (SHAs); 4. Qualifying developments; 5. More permissive resource consent powers; 6. Faster plan changes processes. In summary, the Bill gives significant powers to the Minister, who is able to schedule a region or district, and declare SHAs without any requirement for consultation with local government or other affected parties. If a housing accord is unable to be reached with a relevant territorial authority, then Central Government can step in and grant consent to qualifying developments directly. The Bill has significant implications for local authorities, both for infrastructure funding reasons and plan integrity reasons.
1. Scheduled regions and districts
A district or region may be identified as having significant housing affordability or supply issues if:
• the weekly mortgage payment on a median-priced house exceeds 50% of the median weekly take-home pay for an individual, based on a 20% deposit, or
• the median house price divided by the gross annual median household income equals or exceeds 5.1. The Bill identifies "Auckland" in Schedule 1, as a region with significant housing supply and affordability issues. Other districts or regions may be identified at a later time and added to Schedule 1 by way of Order in Council. There is no requirement for the Minister to consult with the local authority of the affected region or district prior to recommending its inclusion as a scheduled region or district.
2. Housing accords In scheduled regions and districts, Government may enter an agreement with a territorial authority to work collaboratively to address housing supply and affordability. The agreement would be known as a housing accord, and the territorial authority would then be an "accord territorial authority" and thereby able to operate under the new regulatory powers provided in the Bill. A housing accord must set out the parties' agreement about how they will work together to enhance housing affordability by facilitating an increase in land and housing supply, including setting agreed targets for residential development in the district.
www.wynnwilliams.co.nz Housing Accords and Special Areas Bill 32 2
3. Special housing areas
Special housing areas (SHAs) which have the potential to deliver increased land and housing supply may be established by Order in Council within scheduled regions and districts. Resource consent and plan change powers will be more permissive within special housing areas. Before an area may be identified as a special housing area, the Minister must be satisfied that, with the appropriate infrastructure, the area could be used for "qualifying developments" (described below), and that there is demand for such qualifying developments. If a proposed SHA is in a district where a housing accord is in effect, then the Minister must not recommend that the SHA be created unless the accord territorial authority has also recommended that. However, if there is no housing accord in the area, the Minister may recommend that an SHA be created, even if the territorial authority does not recommend that, if:
• a housing accord was in place but has been terminated; or
• the Minister has endeavoured to negotiate in good faith with the territorial authority but has been unable to conclude a housing accord. The latter provision is concerning for local authorities, as there is no requirement for the Minister to consult with them prior to recommending a SHA. The Minister does not need not be satisfied that it will be possible or feasible to provide appropriate infrastructure for the SHA; only that, if appropriate infrastructure is provided, the area could be used for qualifying developments. As the legislation currently stands, SHAs could be created in areas which cannot be adequately or feasibly provided with infrastructure, which would be an undesirable situation.
4. Qualifying developments
The more permissive resource consent and planning powers will apply in relation to qualifying developments, which must be:
• predominantly residential; and
• meet prescribed height limits of up to 6 storeys; and
• meet prescribed minimum density requirements.
5. More permissive resource consent powers
The Bill provides an alternative to the RMA resource consent process, for qualifying developments within special housing areas. Such developments have the option of applying for resource consents under the HA Act, instead of under the RMA. An application for consent under the HA Act will be decided by the "authorised agency", which is:
• the territorial authority, if the special housing area is within a district where a housing accord exists; or
• the chief executive of the Ministry which administers the HA Act, if the special housing area is within a district where no housing accord exists. In relation to applications for qualifying developments in SHAs, there will be special activity status rules:
• if a proposed plan describes the activity as prohibited, the activity will be treated as a discretionary activity;
www.wynnwilliams.co.nz Housing Accords and Special Areas Bill 33 3
• if a plan states that an activity is prohibited, but a proposed plan classifies it as controlled, restricted discretionary, discretionary, or non-complying, the proposed plan will apply. There will also be special notification rules. The authorised agency must not notify the application, or hold a hearing, unless it identifies that the activity's adverse effects on the owners of the adjoining land are more than minor. Even in that case, notification is still within the authorised agency's discretion, rather than mandatory. If a hearing is held, it must be commenced within 20 working days, and completed within 30 working days, after the closing date for submissions. The decision on the application must be notified no later than 60 working days after the application was first lodged. The authorised agency must make its decision on the application on a basis which is consistent with, and gives effect to, the purposes of the HA Act, that is to enhance housing affordability by facilitating an increase in land and housing supply in regions or districts with significant housing affordability or supply issues, while:
• taking into account and giving weight to the matters that would arise for consideration under Part 2 and section 104 to 104E of the RMA; and
• taking into account the key urban design qualities expressed in the MfE's New Zealand Urban Design Protocol (2005). In order to grant the application, the authorised agency must be satisfied that sufficient and appropriate infrastructure will be provided to support the qualifying development. However, the Bill does not clarify who is responsible for the provision of infrastructure necessary to enable a qualifying development, including the attribution of the cost of wider network upgrades required as a result of qualifying developments. This is an issue which could have significant implications for local authorities. Land developers generally proceed on the basis that the infrastructure for the development will be provided by the developer, but then transferred to the local authority when the development is complete. This leaves the local authority with the burden of the depreciation and maintenance of the infrastructure. Often, too, development infrastructure on the periphery of an urban area can have upgrade implications for established infrastructure further inside the urban area. These types of issues should be taken into account prior to the identification of land as a SHA, not at the later stage of making a decision on a qualifying development.
6. Faster Plan Change Processes
The Bill also provides for speedier plan change processes in relation to qualifying developments in SHAs, in districts where a housing accords exists. If the activity is prohibited in the relevant operative plan, and the proposed plan anticipates that the land will be available in the future for a qualifying development, but is silent as to the rules that will apply, an applicant may request a variation to the proposed plan. An applicant may also request a plan change if the activity the applicant is seeking to undertake is prohibited in the relevant plan and a proposed plan continues to describe the activity as prohibited, or there is no provision for the qualifying developed in a proposed plan. Where an applicant requests a plan change or variation, a faster process than is currently the case under the RMA will apply. If the adjoining owners give their approval to the application, the authorised agency must make its decision within 40 working days after the request for plan change is received (or all required information has been provided). Even where a limited notification process is necessary, because adjoining landowners have not given written approval, the entire process is to be completed within 130 working days of the request being received. The authorised agency must make its decision on the basis of giving effect to the purpose of the HA Act, while having regard to Part 2 and section 74 of the RMA. However, the agency must only give effect to those parts of a Regional Policy Statement that are consistent with the purpose of the HA Act.
www.wynnwilliams.co.nz Housing Accords and Special Areas Bill 34 4
7. Limited Rights of Appeal and Objection
The Bill provides that there is no right of appeal against a decision made by an authorised agency, except in relation to a qualifying development that is 4 or more storeys high. It also prohibits applications for judicial review of decisions of authorised agencies, where a right of appeal exists, and unless that right of appeal has been exercised and a decision has been made on the appeal. There is also a limited right of objection, similar to that available under sections 357-358 of the RMA. However, unlike the RMA, the HA Act does not allow a right of appeal against decisions made on objections.
Margo Perpick, Partner Wynn Williams 29th May 2013
www.wynnwilliams.co.nz Housing Accords and Special Areas Bill