Planning Committee Agenda
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA WEDNESDAY 7 AUGUST 2013 AT 9.15AM IN COMMITTEE ROOM 1, CIVIC OFFICES, 53 HEREFORD STREET Committee: Councillor Sue Wells (Chairperson), Councillors Peter Beck, Sally Buck, Jimmy Chen, Aaron Keown, Glenn Livingstone and Claudia Reid. Principal Adviser Committee Adviser Mike Theelen Aimee Bryant Telephone: 941-8281 Telephone: 941-8536 PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION PART B - REPORTS FOR INFORMATION PART C - DELEGATED DECISIONS INDEX ITEM DESCRIPTION PAGE NO. NO. PART C 1. APOLOGIES 1 PART C 2. DECLARATION OF INTEREST 1 PART B 3. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT 1 PART A 4. CHRISTCHURCH CITY PLAN (DISTRICT PLAN) 2005 – FULLY OPERATIVE 3 PART A 5. 2013 DISTRICT PLAN REVIEW COMMENCEMENT 7 PART A 6. RESIDENTIAL LAND AVAILABILTY UPDATE 13 PART A 7. CONSENTING REBUILD MONTHLY REPORT 21 PART B 8. STAFF UPDATE ON ENGAGEMENT WITH EASTERN VISION 23 PART A 9. WEATHERTIGHTHOMES CLAIMS 2013 25 PART C 10. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC 31 We’re on the Web! www.ccc.govt.nz/Council/Agendas/ 1 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7. 8. 2013 1. APOLOGIES 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 external interest they might have. 3. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT 2 3 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7. 8. 2013 4. CHRISTCHURCH CITY PLAN (DISTRICT PLAN) 2005 – FULLY OPERATIVE General Manager responsible: General Manager Strategy and Planning, DDI 941-8281 Officer responsible: City Planning Unit Manager Author: David Punselie, Statutory Administration Officer PURPOSE OF REPORT 1. The purpose of this report is to advise the Committee that all matters notified as part of the proposed City Plan have now been completed. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2. Work on the preparation of a new district plan began in 1990 and a proposed plan was notified on 30 June 1995. More than 2,500 people lodged almost 4,000 submissions seeking more than 12,000 decisions. When these requested decisions were summarised and notified more than 1500 people made almost 30,000 further submissions points in support of or opposed to decisions requested. 3. Some 202 planning reports on the submissions were prepared and the hearing of these occupied two hearing panels and commissioners for 650 days in the period between October 1996 and October 1998. In addition 36 variations were prepared and heard in the same period. The Council considered 152 reports with recommendations from its hearing panels and commissioners and made its decisions in March 1999. These were released in May 1999. 4. Some 430 appeals were lodged in 1999 and the last of these was resolved in 2012. In the period from the release of decisions in 1999 until November 2005 when the plan was made partially operative a further 57 variations were notified. In the period from November 2005 until the present time 84 proposed changes to the plan have been either received or prepared. Of these, 41 have been made operative, 22 are at various stages of preparation, six private plan change requests have not proceeded, 12 Council initiated changes are on hold for various reasons or have not proceeded, one plan change request was declined, and, at the time of writing, two plan changes are in the appeal period following recent decisions. The Council initiated plan changes that have not proceeded are set out in Appendix 1 at the end of this report. The two plan changes that are in the appeal period are PC 52 (Ruapuna) and PC 67 (Highfield). 5. The final matter from the 1995 plan to be resolved was the notice of requirement by New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) for a road widening designation of Opawa Road and Port Hills Road which has been the subject of discussion between NZTA and the Council for many years. Agreement on the extent of widening was finally reached earlier this year and in February the Council made its recommendation to NZTA on the notice of requirement. In May 2013 NZTA made its decision and notice of this was given in accordance with the requirements of the Act. No appeals have been received. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 6. The recommendation in this report is that the information be received. There are no financial implications from accepting the recommendation. Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2009-19 LTCCP budgets? 7. Not applicable. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS 8. Not applicable. Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration? 9. Yes. 4 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7. 8. 2013 4 Cont’d ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS 10. Not applicable. Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2009-19 LTCCP? 11. Not applicable. ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES 12. Not applicable. Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies? 13. Not applicable. CONSULTATION FULFILMENT 14. Not applicable. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Committee receive the information in this report. 5 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7. 8. 2013 Appendix 1 Plan Change Number Plan Change Name Plan Change Status 7 Transport rules District Plan review 11 Living HA/HB zone rule – change of District Plan review status 15 Elderly Persons Housing District Plan review 17 Ferrymead Report to September Planning Committee 33 Waterways District Plan review 40 Rural Quarry zone District Plan review 42 Bridle Path Report to September Planning Committee 50 Airport Noise Management District Plan review 51 Heritage mapping District Plan review 55 Heritage District Plan review 57 Central City South Overtaken by Central City Recovery Plan 61 Living G zone objectives and policies District Plan review 6 7 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7. 8. 2013 5. 2013 DISTRICT PLAN REVIEW COMMENCEMENT General Manager responsible: General Manager Strategy and Planning, DDI 941 8281 Officer responsible: City Planning Unit Manager Author: Brigitte de Ronde, City Planning Unit Manager PURPOSE OF REPORT 1. To update Planning Committee members of the steps that are being taken to ensure the Council meets its obligation under the Land Use Recovery Plan (LURP) to deliver the District Plan Review. The ‘recovery chapters’ of the review are to be completed by 30 June 2014 according to the draft LURP that has gone to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery (CER) for consultation and approval. The remaining chapters which are not directly related to recovery are to be completed before the local body elections in 2016. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2. The matter of the District Plan Review has been an agenda item for the Council for some years. In the month prior to the first earthquake the Council resolved to commence a review to its plan. Those intentions clearly were put on hold post that event. The Council raised the prospect of recommencing this review as part of its response to the issues raised through the LURP process. The Council formally adopted this position at its meeting held on 23 April 2013 (see paragraph 14 for a copy of these minutes). Since this time the Draft Land Use Recovery Plan to go to the Minister CER for consultation and approval now contains actions for the Council to undertake the review of its District Plan, rather than being a multitude of changes to the existing City Plan. On 20 June 2013 the Council further endorsed this commitment. The recommendations also support the need for there to be further discussions with the Minister CER to expedite an appropriate legal process to ensure the timeframes can be met and the non-recovery chapters can be effectively and efficiently progressed in an appropriate District Plan Review process. The existing Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) does not easily allow for the timeframes outlined in paragraph one to be achieved and the current Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act (CER Act) does not allow for non recovery work to be expedited under its powers. 3. Budget, the IMCT tools, staff resourcing, and the governance structure for the review are all underway and more detail on these elements is given within the body of this report. The chapters to completed as recovery chapters in the first year (from 1 July 2013) are indicated in paragraph 15.1 of this report. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 4. A specific budget has been set for FY13/14 at $4,082,000 for external costs to supplement funding within the Strategy and Planning Group budgets to support the first year of this programme. Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2009-19 LTCCP budgets? 5. Yes. The District Plan Review budget has been adopted into the Three Year Annual Plan. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS 6. The legal process for development and delivery of the District Plan Review (both recovery and non recovery chapters) is yet to be determined and will be required to be settled shortly so that the timeframes for delivery can be met. There are issues with both the CER Act and the RMA which impact on delivery. In addition, depending upon which process is ultimately agreed, this is likely to impact on the style and content of both the recovery and non recovery parts of the plan as it will dictate matters including the range of activity status' available for planning rules, drafting style, the ability to include explanatory material, and policy content. 8 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7. 8. 2013 5 Cont’d Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration? 7. There have been ongoing discussions with senior Council and Environment Canterbury (ECan) staff and politicians and Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) staff regarding which legal process to use for the delivery of the District Plan Review. Wynn Williams the legal firm who advises ECan and the LURP partners have also had discussions with CERA legal representatives and James Winchester of Simpson Grierson (Council legal advisor on planning matters and the UDS).