Planning Committee Agenda

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). Currently the options for delivery of the recovery chapters is either through a recovery plan using s24 (1)(c) of the CER Act or under the RMA. The difficulty with either of these options is that:

(a) The CER Act cannot be used to implement non-recovery matters therefore only delivers part of a District Plan Review. Because of this, the CER Act cannot deliver a new structure to implement the bringing together of the Banks Peninsula Plan and the City Plan, or a new structure that is modern, less complex, and more user friendly; (b) The current processes available under the RMA are likely to be either not fit for purpose or too slow in delivering operative recovery chapters by the 30 June 2014 date; and (c) Neither of the above Acts can bring the whole District Plan to bear in a way that will meet the timeframes identified in paragraph 1.

8. For the above reasons ECan Commissioner Prof. Peter Skelton has agreed to accompany Councillor Sue Wells, Chair of the Council’s Planning Committee to a meeting with Minister CER and the Minister for the Environment to discuss options for new legislation which could deliver the whole District Plan Review (amalgamation of both current operative District Plans with a new modern format) within the timeframes agreed. It is imperative to have agreement on the legal process to be used so that the review can begin to be drafted without delay (or reworking) and the structure will meet the Minister CER's needs for more certainty for the rebuild. It will be very difficult to activate the District Plan Review process, and make the necessary funding and operational commitments, without having certainty on the legislative powers that it will be pursued under.

ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS

9. A District Plan Review was to commence in 2010 with it being completed by this year's local body election. However post the earthquakes of September 2010 and February 2011 that programme was put on hold due to other priorities. The review however is still mandated in the City Planning Activity Management Plan.

Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2009-19 LTCCP?

10. Yes.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES

11. The District Plan Review aligns with the CERA Earthquake Recovery Strategy and the draft Land Use Recovery Plan. The review will also draw upon existing Council strategies for transport, the environment, open space, biodiversity and others as necessary as it is not proposed to start from first principles. The review will build upon existing good policy with changes as required through the LURP and from Council's own register of issues and the s35 report (Monitoring the effectiveness and efficiency of the City Plan) which was undertaken in 2010. Consultation with Community Boards was undertaken in 2010 and will be updated during the preparation of the new proposed District Plan.

Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?

12. Yes - see above. 9 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7. 8. 2013

5 Cont’d

CONSULTATION FULFILMENT

13. There has been one meeting with the Combined Community Board chairs to update them on this project.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Planning Committee recommend that the Council receive this report.

BACKGROUND (THE ISSUES)

14. At its meeting on 24 April 2013 the Council approved the following resolutions:

“23. PROPOSED TIMEFRAME FOR DISTRICT PLAN REVIEW It was resolved unanimously on the motion of Councillor Wells, seconded by Councillor Reid, that the Council:

(a) Approve the proposed timeframe for the review programme as per Attachments 1 and 2, with the first year primarily focussed on the “recovery” components to be pursued under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 (Land Use Recovery Plan) and the remaining District Plan components (i.e. “non-recovery”) to be pursued under an expedited Resource Management Act process.

(b) Ensure that any direction preserves sufficient scope for the Council and the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery to review and amend the existing programme.

(c) Authorise the General Manager Strategy and Planning and the Chair of the Planning Committee to engage in discussions with government officials over an expedited Resource Management process for those components of the District Plan Review which are not primarily recovery related.

(d) Authorise the General Manager Strategy and Planning and the Chair of the Planning Committee to discuss appropriate provisions for the Land Use Recovery Programme document to allow the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery to consider a statutory direction to the prioritised review of the District Plan, as per the attached programme. Also to discuss provisions to confirm the processes:

to agree the scope of recovery parts of the Plan; for consultation; for hearings and recommendations to give effect to each section/chapter of the Plan in a timely and efficient manner.

(e) Ensure there is a clear process of dialogue in circumstances where the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery intends or wishes to vary significantly from any recommendations made to him.

(f) Establish protocols for how the “recovery” and remaining parts of the review will be conducted in particular, liaison between the Council and other key stakeholders where appropriate, including Environment Canterbury, Ngai Tahu, the Ministry for the Environment, and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority.

(g) Determine a process for how “recovery” focussed and other remaining elements of the Plan may be progressed to ensure the District Plan is efficiently and effectively reviewed, while ensuring that all parts of the review are carried out in a legally robust and effective manner. “

15. Since the Council meeting in April a number of steps have been undertaken towards meeting the LURP timeframes. The Council meeting held on 20 June further endorses the Council undertaking its own District Plan Review as part of endorsing the draft LURP to go to the Minister CER. 10 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7. 8. 2013

5 Cont’d

15.1 Content of the District Plan Review

The first chapters to be worked on are those that are referred to in the LURP (hence the term ‘recovery’ chapters), commencing 1 July 2013 and to be completed with decisions released by 30 June 2014 are as follows:

 Introductory chapter on principles guiding the review  Residential (rationalise all zones, introduce new areas for medium density, objectives, policies and rules)  Business (rationalise all zones including Key Activity Centres, industrial, commercial and plan changes identified through the Suburban Centres masterplans, objectives, policies and rules)  Subdivision, Development and Earthworks (objectives, policies and rules)  Hazardous substances and Contaminated land (to bring into alignment with NPS)  Natural Hazards (introduce new objectives and policies to cover rockfall, liquefaction, review flooding rules)  Transport and Parking (new roading hierarchy, objectives and policies, new rules as per Christchurch Transport Plan and the Greater Christchurch Transport Strategy)  Some of the special purpose zones (hospital, airport)  Future Urban Development areas (those Greenfield areas that do not yet have an Outline Development Plan)  Part of the Heritage chapter (objectives, policies and some rules)  Maps and appendices relating to the above.

The remaining non-recovery chapters will be completed after the above chapters and must be completed by the next local body elections in 2016. These chapters will include:

 Remaining part of Heritage Chapter (schedules, map symbols)  Reformatted Central City Recovery Plan (planning rules and maps)  Coast and Surface of Rivers  Rural  General Rules and Procedures , including signs  Designations  Tangata whenua (papakainga)  Open Space  Remaining Special Purpose Areas (if any)  Introduction to the Plan  Maps  Glosssary and Appendices.

Any appeals to decisions released will be dealt with outside of the above timeframe (i.e. post the local body elections in 2016).

15.2 Staff resourcing

Considerable work and collaboration has taken place amongst Strategy and Planning and across the Council to support this priority project. More than 60 Strategy and Planning staff and over 30 other departmental staff or consultants will have a direct involvement in the development of the District Plan Review. In terms of Strategy and Planning, over 50% of staff time will be allocated to the project with the majority of District Planning staff being 100% dedicated to the project. Therefore, any additional projects that are identified throughout the 13/14 year will have to be considered carefully before proceeding due to a lack of available resource and/or budget. 11 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7. 8. 2013

5 Cont’d

15.3 IMCT

Council’s IMCT staff in collaboration with Strategy and Planning have researched, located and are in the final process of procuring a web based tool to support the District Plan. The vendor is 24, and has worked with other Councils, most recently the Dunedin City Council and the Auckland Council with their unitary plan. The tool is called PLAN, which promotes online, real time collaborative drafting and eventually a clever search tool called LINE of ENQUIRY. In addition, the vendor provides a submission tool called CONSULT and this is part of the package being purchased.

The tool will be implemented progressively, including:

(a) Migration of the existing Banks Peninsula DP and City Plan to the PLAN platform. This will largely remain ‘static’ as it currently is, with better print ability and ability to search words; (b) Establish another PLAN platform to begin drafting the new proposed District Plan (recovery chapters); (c) Establish CONSULT to enable an inclusive consultation and submissions process with the public for the recovery chapters; and (d) Establish the LINE of ENQUIRY capability (which allows an enquirer to determine what steps to take before undertaking a particular activity) when the District Plan Review is complete, allowing interactive searches for the public. Searching by word or property will be achieved in time for the submissions process.

15.4 Governance

The review will be led by the City Planning Unit Manager, a project manager has been appointed. We are in consultation with the Ministry for the Environment around their involvement. With the upcoming local body elections we are currently working on the development of a process to ensure that Councillors are closely involved in the development of the plan and its contents.

15.5 Internal Structure and Template

The format and structure of the proposed new District Plan is yet to be determined and is likely to be heavily dependent on the legislation to be used to deliver the review. A balance will need to be struck between achieving the Minister CERs intentions and the need to ensure the rebuild of the City is efficient and effective, and community needs to maintain amenity, character of areas within Christchurch and a say over what is to be in the new proposed District Plan.

15.6 Public Affairs

A small team, lead by a Public Affairs manager, is being pulled together to plan and implement communications, marketing and engagement activities throughout the District Plan review process. These will include internal communications, and external publicity and promotion, as well as active, ongoing stakeholder and community engagement. This team will also work closely with planning staff on the development of the District Plan document.

16. In conclusion Council staff are gearing up for the District Plan Review, a project that is to be fully completed with Decisions released on a proposed District Plan by 2016. The review is to bring together, modernise, and harmonise the two existing operative District Plans known as the Banks Peninsula District Plan and the City Plan. 12 13 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7. 8. 2013

6. RESIDENTIAL LAND AVAILABILITY UPDATE

General Manager responsible: General Manager Strategy and Planning Group, DDI 941-8281 Officer responsible: City Planning Unit Manager Author: Mark Stevenson, Senior Planner

PURPOSE OF REPORT

1. The purpose of this report is to update the Committee on the availability of residential land in the Christchurch City area.

BACKGROUND

2. At its meeting on the 28 June 2012, the Council resolved that the Land Availability schedule, reported to it at that meeting, be updated quarterly and placed on a Council Agenda. This reflects the two goals of the Built Environment Recovery Programme in the Recovery Strategy of zoning sufficient land for recovery needs, and coordinating and prioritising infrastructure investment during recovery. The Land Use Recovery Plan forms a part of the Built Environment Recovery component of the Recovery Strategy and supports these goals. The Council also resolved in June 2012 that the information in the tables attached to the report, which included infrastructure availability, be added to the Council Land Availability webpage.

3. Attached to this report is a schedule (Attachment 1) showing the planning and development status of residential land and infrastructure availability in Christchurch as at 26 June 2013.

4. The schedule identifies the status of plan changes for rezoning land in greenfield areas, the potential number of sections across the whole of each greenfield area, the number of sections approved or subject to an application for subdivision in each greenfield area, and the availability of infrastructure to serve each area.

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Greenfield areas

5. The following table provides a summary of the potential number of sections and those consented/ subject to applications for consent in the greenfield areas identified in both Proposed Change 1 (PC1) to the Regional Policy Statement, and as priority areas for housing in the Draft Land Use Recovery Plan (LURP). Also shown are the changes since the last report in April 2013.*

Indicator Current Previous Change

Potential Sections in greenfield areas (incl. 19,819 20,502 683 sections land not zoned)

Potential Sections within operative Living 10,219 8,802 zones in PC1 greenfield areas (A) 1,417 sections

Sections consented or subject to application for subdivision in PC1 greenfield areas (B) 3,909 1,903 2,006 sections

Percentage of potential sections zoned Living in PC1 greenfield areas (A), with 38.3% 21.6% 17% subdivision consent or subject to application for subdivision (B)

* The reduction in total number of sections is explained in paragraph 6 below. 14 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7. 8. 2013

6 Cont’d

6. In summary, there are 19,819 potential sections in greenfield areas, of which 10,219 have been rezoned for housing. This includes 2,200 sections within the Highfield Park plan change area (north of QEII Drive and west of Mills Road/ Hills Road), recently approved by the Council. The drop in total ‘potential’ sections across all greenfield areas reflects a reduction in the total number expected in the Wigram Living G zone, and Prestons area (previously reported as 1,890 and 2,300, and now expected to provide 1,307 and 2,200 respectively). The previous total yield for Wigram of 1,890 was based on an area defined in Proposed Change 1, which includes land previously rezoned (known as Wigram Skies that has been developed with 365 sections) as well as land identified for a commercial centre. The updated yield for Prestons of 2,200 is based on the minimum number of sections specified for the greenfield area in the City Plan (from 2,700 in Proposed Change 1).

7. There has been an increase in the number of greenfields sections that subdivision consent have been applied for or that have subdivision consent. This includes approximately 900 sections in the Fulton Hogan development off Halswell Junction Road, 180 in the Awatea block, over 1,200 in Prestons and 400 in the North West Belfast area (North of Johns Road).

8. Of the greenfield areas yet to be rezoned (9,600 potential sections), land for 350 sections is proposed to be rezoned in the area known as Highsted, between Cavendish Road and Gardiners Road, south of Styx Mill Road as part of the Draft LURP. A private plan change request has also been received by Council for 255 sections in the greenfield area known as South of Masham. A report for notification of this plan change is to go to the July Council meeting.

9. The review of the District Plan, which the Council gave approval to on 24 April 2013, also provides the opportunity to enable the development of priority greenfield areas identified in the Draft LURP. As a part of the review, consideration will be given to the preparation of an Outline Development Plans (ODP) for each greenfield priority area (both residential and business), which do not yet have approved ODPs. This will ensure development and the delivery of infrastructure occurs in an co-ordinated manner while also facilitating and enabling a timely and co-ordinated recovery in accordance with the Recovery Strategy and Draft LURP.

Other Developments

10. In addition to greenfield areas identified in PC1 and the Draft LURP, there is land with subdivision consent and/or with further potential for development in existing urban areas and greenfield areas rezoned prior to the earthquakes. This includes areas such as Aidanfield and Masham that have been under development for a number of years and that continue to contribute to the current supply with sections available to the market. The following table presents a summary of the potential sections and those consented in areas outside greenfield areas identified in PC1 and the Draft LURP that contribute towards the supply of housing across Christchurch.

11. Note that this only includes large greenfield areas rezoned prior to the earthquakes that have potential to accommodate more than 100 sections i.e. Masham, Aidanfield Wigram Skies, Westmorland, and development sites in existing urban areas zoned for housing that can accommodate 5 or more sections.

Current Previous Change Potential sections in large greenfield areas outside PC1/ Draft LURP greenfield areas, and 2,862 2,280 582 development sites in existing urban area Sections consented in large greenfield areas outside PC1/ Draft LURP greenfield areas, and 2,426 1,868 558 development sites in existing urban area

12. There remain a number of issues amongst different development parties that are presently holding back development of one area, Masham, which requires access through adjoining land. Otherwise, there are no infrastructure limitations on development in these areas. 15 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7. 8. 2013

6 Cont’d

INFRASTRUCTURE

13. The programme for infrastructure delivery remains challenging. Key projects have been identified for inclusion in the Council's draft 2013/22 LTP. Priorities include the provision of basic water supply, waste water and stormwater services.

14. In the South West, Wastewater Rising Main 105 has been completed and is currently at the testing and commissioning stage. This provides for the development of a significant number of sections in the south west of the city. It is estimated that the rising main will be fully operational by September, but will be capable of meeting additional demand in the South West from the beginning of August 2013.

15. The Council has also been working with the developers of the Prestons subdivision and CERA to facilitate housing development in the North East of the City to meet demand from those displaced by the earthquakes, This has included approval for 400 sections and an agreement to formalise the sharing of costs for the development of infrastructure. To enable the management of stormwater from a part of the Prestons greenfield area within the Avon catchment, the status of Clare Park has been reclassified under the Reserves Act for the development of stormwater facilities. There are also plans to acquire land for stormwater purposes and pump stations for wastewater and water supply, which will be subject to separate reports to the Council in the near future.

16. The Styx Catchment Management Plan was lodged with ECan in October 2012 as a part of an application to manage stormwater from existing urban areas and greenfield areas in the north of Christchurch, including Highfield, Highsted and areas in Belfast, before discharge to the Styx river. It has recently been granted, following a hearing in June and the period for appeals on the decision ends 22 July.

17. The following table summarises the potential number of sections in greenfield areas with infrastructure constraints. As infrastructure becomes available, this figure will continue to reduce. While there has been a reduction since the last quarter, this reflects the change in total ‘potential sections across greenfield areas’ as described in paragraph 6.

Current Previous Change

Potential Sections with infrastructure 15,711 16,448 737 sections constraints in PC1 greenfield areas

18. Conformity with LURP

The Draft LURP indicates that there would potentially be 8,211 greenfield sections available in the new greenfield areas by 2016 (plus another 1,180 within the existing urban area). The above figures indicate that the Council has already zoned more land (enough for 10,219 sections) than is required to meet the number of sections anticipated by 2016 in the LURP for new greenfield areas. The numbers also indicate that the rate of subdivision is on track to meet or better the number of sections anticipated in the LURP. The number of sections in the new greenfield areas granted subdivision consent, or within current subdivision applications, is 47.6 per cent of the 8,211 sections anticipated in LURP by 2016. However, we are only just over 41 per cent through the time period through to the end of 2016. Given the increasing rate of subdivision reflected in the above figures (in part reflecting the increased rate of rezoning greenfield land since the earthquakes), the indications are that the section target by 2016 in the LURP will be comfortably met, barring market and other factors outside of the control of the Council. (It is noted that the LURP uses different time periods than the three time periods previously used in PC1, and anticipates a higher number of greenfield sections being available by 2016 than PC1). 16 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7. 8. 2013

6 Cont’d

WEBPAGE

19. The upgraded interactive webpage identifying current and future subdivisions, including infrastructure availability, is live and available for public use. The site can be viewed at http://www.ccc.govt.nz/thecouncil/policiesreportsstrategies/landavailability/index.aspx.

20. Developers can update the site directly and provide real-time information on section availability within their developments. As the website is increasingly used by developers and embraced by the public, the information obtained as a result will be a valuable tool in planning land and infrastructure requirements throughout the Christchurch area.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Planning Committee recommend that the Council receive the report. ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 6 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7. 8. 2013 17 ATTACHMENT 1 Existing and Potential Land Availability - Christchurch City Dated - 27 June 2013

Sections dependent on Potential Sections Sections consented or infrastructure upgrade* Proposed completion Development Area / Name Plan Change Status (Total potential) Sections zoned subject to application* (Refer to next column) Infrastructure to be delivered by Council of Infrastructure

PC1 Greenfield Areas South West New wastewater pump station (105) and associated infrastructure Sep 2013 New water supply pump station (Wilmers Road) Jul 2013 Wigram (Living G zone) Plan Change 62 Operative 1307 1307 702 1127 Stormwater facilities to be provided as part of subdivision

New wastewater pump station (105) and associated infrastructure Sep 2013 New wastewater pump station (115) to serve subdivision Jul 2013 New pressure main (pipe) from subdivision to Wigram Road sewer main Jul 2013 New water supply pump station (Wilmers Road) Jul 2013 Fulton Hogan Halswell West Stormwater facilities to be provided as part of subdivision Plan Change 60 Operative 14621462 898 1192 (Longhurst and Knights Stream) Off-site wetland facility to be implemented Dec 2013

New wastewater pump station (105) and associated infrastructure Sep 2013 New wastewater pump station (123) to pressure main (pipe) on Wigram Road Sep 2013 North Awatea New wastewater pressure main (pipe) from Fulton Hogan development to pump station on Wigram Road Jul 2013 Plan Change 5 Operative (shared infrastructure). New water supply pump station (Wilmers Road) Jul 2013 Stormwater facilities to be provided as part of subdivision Awatea 1210 1210 182 1210 New wastewater pump station (105) and associated infrastructure Sep 2013 New wastewater pump station (123) to pressure main (pipe) on Wigram Road Jul 2013 New wastewater pressure main (pipe) from Fulton Hogan development to pump station on Wigram Road ( Jul 2013 South Awatea shared infrastructure). Plan Change 5 Operative New water supply pump station (Wilmers Road). Jul 2013 Stormwater facilities to be provided as part of subdivision Planning - Development of the 810 sections subject to relocation/closure of Kart Club. New wastewater pump station (105) and associated infrastructure Sep 2013 Plan Change 68 for part of Greenfield New sewer connection from development site to Pumpstation 105 Jul 2014 Sparks Road area - To be incorporated into District 1810 0 0 1810 New water supply pump station (Wilmers Road) Jul 2013 Plan Review Stormwater facilities to be provided as part of subdivision

New wastewater pump station (105) and associated infrastructure Sep 2013 Servicing of area is dependent on infrastructure for Sparks Road, South East Halswell and Hendersons Basin developments to enable outfall to PS 105 South Halswell No plan change 780 0 252 780 New water supply pump station (Wilmers Road) Jul 2013 Stormwater facilities to be provided as part of subdivision

New wastewater pump station (105) and associated infrastructure Sep 2013 Upgrade of wastewater pump station (60) Aug 2013 South West Halswell No plan change 1744 0 0 1744 Connections to wastewater PS 60 and PS 61 catchments (balance being FH Halswell West) New water supply pump station (Wilmers Road) Jul 2013 Stormwater facilities to be provided as part of subdivision Existing subdivision (Quarry View) 27 New wastewater pump station (105) and associated infrastructure Sep 2013 Servicing of area is dependent on infrastructure for Sparks Road, Hendersons Basin developments South East Halswell 1060 0 No plan change 0 1033 New water supply pump station (Wilmers Road) July 2013 Stormwater facilities to be provided as part of subdivision New wastewater pump station (105) and associated infrastructure Sep 2013 Wastewater Infrastructure options to service the development have yet to be finalised and will be dependent on Hendersons Basin No plan change 1383 0 0 1383 infrastructure provision for Sparks Road development New water supply pump station (Wilmers Road) Jul 2013 Stormwater facilities to be provided as part of subdivision North/ Belfast

Planning / transport - City Plan currently requires upgrading of four intersections ahead of more than 400 sections being created. 1. Marshland / Mairehau. Jul 2015 2. Marshland / Prestons Jul 2015 3. Mairehau / Burwood. Jul 2015 4. Lower Styx / Marshland Jul 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 6 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7. 8. 2013 18

Planning - City Plan requirement for works to commence on a number of transport projects before more than Notice of Requirement 1,700 sections are created. This includes the Northern Arterial and 4 laning of QEII Drive between Main North for Northern Arterial Road and Innes Road, together with either the Northern Arterial Extension (NAE) or Hills Road Extension Extension to be lodged in (HRE) Sep 2013 Prestons Road Plan Change 30 Operative 2200 2200 1278 1700 Northern Arterial and associated links planned for completion by 2020.

Replacement of pump stations 63 and 36 in SCIRT programme. Subject to upgrade at time of replacement to PS36 Mar 2014 cater for Prestons until final solution for waste water infrastructure is available. PS62 Oct 2013 Construction of vacuum pumping station (Developer to implement) Jul 2015

Secondary treatment of stormwater proposed in Clare Park (Reclassification completed) Incl. in Three Year Plan

Belfast Park Plan Change 43 Operative 640 640 0 0

East Belfast Intersection upgrades may be required ahead of development No plan change 510 0 0 0 (balance being Belfast Park) Belfast 293 Operative 1300 1300 403 0 Developer to provide infrastructure to connect with main trunk system. Until construction of the new Northern Trunk sewer, existing trunk infrastructure to be utilised to meet requirements. Jul 2016 (Northern trunk) Highfield Park Plan Change 67 Approved (Subject to 2100 2100 0 2100 Water supply system upgrade required Appeals) Intersection and roading improvements required Stormwater facilities to be provided as part of subdivision.

Plan Change 72, proposed for rezoning as Highsted 350 0 167 0 part of the Land Use Recovery Plan Developer to provide infrastructure to connect with main trunk system. Until construction of the new Northern Trunk sewer, existing trunk infrastructure to be utilised to meet requirements. Jul 2016 (Northern trunk) Intersection and roading improvements required Jul 2017 New water supply pump station Upper Styx Plan Change 71 (ODP) 1610 0 0 1632 Intersection and roading improvements required. Stormwater facilities to be provided as part of subdivision.

West Russley No plan change 98 0 0 0 South of Masham Plan Change 80 Formally lodged 255 0 0 0

TOTAL - Greenfield Areas 19819 10219 3909 15711

Large Development Areas (existing zoned land) Aidanfield (Stages 8 and 9) Zoning Operative 160 160 160 0 Westmorland Zoning Operative 212 212 212 0 Planning - development of remaining 132 sections for Enterprise Homes dependant on alternative access (additional to access via Masham Road/ Kintyre Drive). Masham Zoning Operative 490 490 358 132 (Enterprise Homes/ Noble/ Delamain)

Wigram Skies (First stage - Living 1) Original subdivision (Stage 1) 365 365 365 0

TOTAL - Large Development Areas 1227 1227 1095 132

Small Development Areas (existing zoned land) 20 Old Red Barn Road, Halswell Operative zoning 5 5 23 Crohane Place, Addington Operative zoning 9 0 Augusta Street Operative zoning 5 0 Bayswater Crescent Operative zoning 8 8 Bayswater Estate Operative zoning 94 94 Black Rock Estate Operative zoning 48 48 Cass Bay Heights Operative zoning 14 14 Diamond Heights Operative zoning 10 0 Godley Drive Operative zoning 5 5 Grenville Operative zoning 5 5 Huntsbury - Broad Oaks Operative zoning 230 230 Northshore Development Operative zoning 16 16 Rangers Close Operative zoning 32 32 Rostrevor Estate Operative zoning 29 29 The Panoramas Operative zoning 9 9 103 Mandeville Street, Riccarton Operative zoning 12 12 11 Clarence Street, Addington Operative zoning 8 8 114 Nursery Road, Linwood Operative zoning 8 8 12 Leaver Terrace, North New Brighton Operative zoning 5 5 126 Nursery Road, Linwood (unit titles) Operative zoning 18 18 138 Kerrs Road, Wainoni Operative zoning 8 8 152 Holly Road, St Albans Operative zoning 6 6 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 6 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7. 8. 2013 19

158 McGregors Road - Rangers Close Operative zoning 32 32 172 Fitzgerald Avenue, Linwood Operative zoning 5 5 18 Goldsmith Place, Waltham Operative zoning 8 8 272 Knowles Street, St Albans Operative zoning 6 6 268 Kennedys Bush Rd Operative zoning 11 11 29 Clarence Street Sth, Addington Operative zoning 8 8 38 John Campbell Cres, Lindon Grove Operative zoning 5 5 38 Steadman Road, Masham (unit titles) Operative zoning 5 5 408 Worcester Street Operative zoning 6 6 421 Wigram Road, Wentworth Park Operative zoning 17 17 424 Manchester Street, St Albans Operative zoning 5 5 45 Oakhampton Street, Hornby (EPUnits) Operative zoning 5 5 45/1 Horseshoe Lake, Shirley (EPUnits) Operative zoning 5 5 468 Cashel Street, Linwood (unit titles) Operative zoning 18 18 486 Armagh Street, Linwood Operative zoning 5 5 5/190 Lincoln Road, Addington Operative zoning 5 5 50 Roberts Road, Hei Hei Operative zoning 6 6 56 Avonside Drive, Linwood (disabled units) Operative zoning 7 7 6 Constance Plance, Oaklands Operative zoning 6 6 70 Elizabeth Street, Riccarton Operative zoning 5 5 79 Matipo Street, Riccarton Operative zoning 5 5 86 St Lukes Street, Woolston Operative zoning 18 18 9 Pavilion Crescent, Addington Operative zoning 5 5 97 Opawa Road, Opawa Operative zoning 5 5 Alpine View (EPUnits) Operative zoning 40 40 Anthony Wilding Oaklands (EPUnits) Operative zoning 35 35 Anthony Wilding Oaklands (EPUnits) Operative zoning 46 46 Clearwater Operative zoning 45 45 Former Maltworks Site - Port Hills Rd, Business 4 180 Heathcote Valley (EP Units) Greenwood Farm - Richmond Hill Operative zoning 24 24 Halswell on Park Operative zoning 42 42 Parkridge - Mt Pleasant Operative zoning 24 24 Philpotts Rd (EPUnits) Operative zoning 180 180 Quarry Hill - Kennedys Bush Operative zoning 8 8 Rostrevor Estate Operative zoning 29 29 Southwest Motorway Operative zoning 100 100 New wastewater pump station and associated wastewater infrastructure Sep 2013 Te Repo Oaks - Halswell Operative zoning 13 13 Waitikiri Operative zoning 82 82 TOTAL - Small Development Areas 1635 1331 100

GRAND TOTAL 22681 6335 15943

* Figures are included in 'Potential Sections' and 'Sections zoned' 20 21 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7. 8. 2013

7. CONSENTING REBUILD MONTHLY REPORT

General Manager responsible: General Manager Regulation & Democracy Services, DDI 941-8462 Officer responsible: Unit Manager Building Operations Author: Ethan Stetson, Unit Manager Building Operations and John Higgins, Resource Consents Manager

PURPOSE OF REPORT

1. To provide the Planning Committee with a monthly update on the consenting rebuild. This report only covers activity for the month of June 2013.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2. The Council has agreed that the Chief Executive would report regularly to the Council on progress with regard to the consenting rebuild work.

3. The report (Attachment 1) is the regular monthly report that is provided to both the Council and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA).

4. The Council considered the information in the report at its meeting of 2 February 2012. Staff is continually seeking to improve the information provided and welcome feedback and direction from the Council.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Planning Committee recommend that the Council receive the information in this report. ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 7 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7. 8. 2013

CONSENTING REBUILD MONTHLY REPORT

INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to provide the Committee with information on the year end statistics on building and resource consents, an update from the recently appointed Crown Manager and an update on the recent MfE review. This report also covers activity for June 2013.

Revocation of BCA Accreditation On 1 July 2013 IANZ (International Accreditation New Zealand Council) notified the Council that it intended to revoke the Councils BCA accreditation. As a result Council resolved to ask the Government to appoint a Crown Manager for the Councils building consent functions.

Appointment of Crown Manager

On 8 July the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Gerry Brownlee and the Minister for Local Government Chris Tremain announced the appointment of Douglas Martin as the Crown Manager for the Council's building consent functions. Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Minister, Gerry Brownlee also agreed the Crown Manager’s Terms of Reference, which were previously discussed with the Council.

“The Crown Manager’s role will focus on oversight of the Council’s building consenting functions and ensuring that the Council regains its accreditation. The Crown Manager will have the authority to direct the Council to take actions he considers necessary to resolve the Council’s on-going issues with building consents.”

Crown Manager The Crown Manager has until 15 August 2013 to prepare a plan which will be submitted to Ministers and the Council for approval. Presently he has directed MBIE Officials to work with the Building Operations Unit to identify areas where quick progress can be made to streamline processes. These largely relate to recommendations from the recent MBIE review of the Christchurch City Council building consenting system. These include streamlined systems and arrangements with other BCA’s and contractors for processing Greenfield new buildings, typically undertaken by Group Housing Companies and using the Building Act Schedule 1 exemption process for streamlining the processing of amendments and low risk building works.

MfE Review of Resource Management Planning and Consenting Delivery. The Minister for the Environment requested a review of resource management planning and consenting delivery during July, which was carried out between 9-15 July. The report had not been released at the time of writing this report. The purpose of the assessment was to identify whether Council was sufficiently resourced and had suitably robust resource management processes in place to meet the expected requirements of the pace of earthquake recovery. The review focussed primarily on plan making and consenting functions of Council and their relationship to the recovery of Christchurch.

BUILDING OPERATIONS

Year End Results 89% of all building consents were granted within 20 working days. 100% of building inspections carried out within 3 days of booking. Annual Residents Survey results: 71% of customers satisfied with building services.

BUILDING CONSENTS – June Results

There were 19 working days in June with 677 building applications received =35.6 per day. In May there was 18 working days from 1-24 May 2013 with 830 building applications received = 46 per day.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 7 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7. 8. 2013

All Consents

Month Building Building Building Applications Consents Consent Received Granted Value Granted April 712 608 $125,097,630 May 948 868 $120,959,866 June 677 827 $120,426,188

Non-Earthquake Related Building Consents

Building Consents Granted in Granted in Month Type Granted ≤20 days >20 days April All 385 317 82% 68 18% Residential 313 262 84% 51 16% Commercial 72 55 76% 17 24% May All 649 572 88% 77 12% Residential 597 533 89% 64 11% Commercial 52 39 75% 13 25% June All 628 448 71% 180 29% Residential 555 422 76% 133 24% Commercial 73 26 36% 47 64%

Earthquake Related Building Consents

Building Consents Granted in Granted in Month Type Granted ≤20 days >20 days April All 223 163 73% 60 27% Residential 186 133 72% 53 28% Commercial 37 30 81% 7 19% May All 219 138 63% 81 37% Residential 185 116 63% 69 37% Commercial 34 22 65% 12 35% June All 199 91 46% 108 54% Residential 164 69 42% 95 58% Commercial 35 22 63% 13 37%

RESOURCE CONSENTS Year End Results

A total of 1515 land use applications and 307 subdivision applications were processed.

98% of complex land use consent applications were processed within statutory timeframes (1349/1370). 100% of simple land use consent applications were processed in 10 working days (145). 98% of complex subdivision applications were processed within statutory timeframes (272/278). 97% of simple subdivision applications were processed within 10 working days (28/29). 73% of Central City applications were processed within 10 working days (107/147). 71% of permitted Temporary Accommodation applications were processed within 3 working days (49/69). 35% of Site Specific applications were processed within 5 working days (36/103 applications processed). ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 7 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7. 8. 2013

100% of s.223 Subdivision Engineering certificates were issued in 10 working days (146). 99% of s.224 Subdivision Completion certificates were issued in 20 working days (206/207).

Resource Consents June Results RMA RMA applications applications granted (includes temporary Month received accommodation applications) April 206 164 May 232 195 June 253 163

Resource consents (all consents)

RFI Processed RFI 10 working RFI within Applications No RFI 0-9 working days and Over 20 20 working Month issued required days after working days days April 148 94 37 17 0 147 (99%) May 173 110 40 23 0 170 (98%) June 157 120 28 9 0 157 (100%)

CUSTOMER COMMUNICATIONS

The following marketing and communications was conducted during the month of June. - An advert in the ‘Your Rebuild’ section of the Christchurch Star on 3 June, including editorial ‘Giving the Go Ahead’. - An advert in Metropol ‘Canterbury Rebuild’ on 11 June, including editorial ‘Building consents slow in face of record applicants’. - Article in Our Christchurch magazine ‘Consents response a team effort’. - Advertising on rebuildchristchurch.co.nz website - Advertising on realestate.co.nz website - A billboard on state highway 1 heading into Hornby. Several media releases were sent: - 12 June – ‘Council addresses consenting issues’. - 13 June – ‘Offers of help flood in’. - 18 June – ‘Consents action plan’. - 20 June – ‘Healthy progress on consents’. - 27 June – ‘Building consents update at Council meeting’. The Go Ahead e-newsletter was sent on 17 June (update on what we were doing in response to the IANZ report) to 470 people, with an open rate of 56%. A printed version was also sent to 250 postal contacts.

23 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7. 8. 2013

8. STAFF UPDATE ON ENGAGEMENT WITH EASTERN VISION

Staff will provide a verbal update on recent meetings with the Eastern Vision Group. 24 25 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7. 8. 2013

9. WEATHERTIGHT HOMES CLAIMS IN CHRISTCHURCH

General Manager responsible: Peter Mitchell, General Manager Regulation and Democracy Services, DDI 941-8462 Officer responsible: Steve McCarthy, Resource Consents and Building Policy Manager Author: Steve McCarthy, Resource Consents and Building Policy Manager Samantha Owles, Senior Building Support Officer, Weathertight and Building-Related Claims

PURPOSE OF REPORT

1. The purpose of this report is to outline for Councillors, the history of the “leaky building” issue and provide an update on the current status of weathertight homes claims in Christchurch.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2. Leaky buildings are a national issue that arose principally as the result of a systemic failure in the building industry between 1992 and 2004. During this time a combination of new legislation, relaxed building controls, new and unproven building standards, materials and building designs and unskilled builders and industry players - all lead to a scale of weathertightness problems in buildings which was unprecedented in New Zealand.

3. The issue surfaced nationally in 2002, when the BIA (Building Industry Authority) appointed a Weathertightness Overview Group to enquire into the weathertightness of buildings in New Zealand - housing that was leaking and causing decay. The subsequent (Hunn) report identified a systematic failure in the building industry causing leaky buildings.

4. The Council has previously agreed to become a party to the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service (WHRS) - Financial Assistance Package (FAP) scheme, paying 25 per cent only where the claimant is eligible (Government 25 per cent, homeowner up to 50 per cent) towards the remediation costs. The owners have the ability to involve other parties to the claim, such as builders and developers, in contributing towards the scheme. If not, they can make further claims against these other parties. in other forums. If required, the homeowner also has access to loan funding if they prove financially ‘capable’.

3. The scheme became effective on 28 July 2011 and existing claimants were given the opportunity to convert their WHRS claims to the FAP Scheme, provided they met certain eligibility criteria and applied by the end of October 2011.

4. We have had 77 claimants apply to be part of the FAP scheme, of which we have accepted 48 and declined 21 applications (generally because they are Certifier jobs and Council has not been involved, the Council had not completed all of the inspections and/or no code compliance certificate was issued, or remediation was completed prior to the scheme’s deadline). The remaining 8 are currently under review for contribution.

5. Currently Christchurch has 77 active WHRS claims involving 161 properties (MBIE Weathertight website as at 30 July 2013). This represents about 5.8 per cent of the 1,338 claims nationally. In addition, we have six claims involving weathertight allegations (of which some are inter-linked with other construction issues) progressing through the District or High Court system.

6. During the last financial year (2012/2013), we have settled 11 weathertight claims (nine WHRS/Weathertight Homes Tribunal (WHT)/Court claims through mediation, and two through the FAP scheme) with the mean average payout, including legal and expert costs, being $96,000.

7. During this same time period, we have be notified or served with eight new weathertight claims, through both the WHRS and Court system.

8. We are currently preparing nine weathertight claims for upcoming mediations (various forums), and 23 FAP applications are at various active stages. Only one of these 32 claims has insurance cover, either due to policy wording exclusion (post-July 2009) or the fund year aggregate has been exceeded. 26 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7. 8. 2013

9 Cont’d

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

9. The Council has previously provided $1 million per annum in its 2010/11 - 2016/17 budgets to meet weathertight homes claims. These figures have been based on Council’s previous history of resolving claims under the WHRS Act 2006, and provides for some existing claimants in the WHRS scheme, who have opted into the FAP scheme.

10. Since the FAP scheme began in July 2011, we have fully resolved two WHRS claims using the FAP Scheme and are in various stages of the scheme with 23 claims. In general, these claimants have already completed remediation works, or are currently proceeding through the design and consent process. All works require a Building Consent which meet building code standards, and this enables further Council scrutiny to ensure works remediate the causation of the leaks, as well as meet building code requirements.

11. In mid 2011, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) estimated that each claim would take 18 months for a WHRS claim to complete through the FAP scheme, with the added benefit that the dwelling would be fully remediated at the actual construction cost. At all stages of the FAP process, the cost is scrutinised by both MBIE and Council to guarantee maximum benefit for a reasonable cost to the tax and rate-payer.

12. Two years into the FAP scheme, and both the MBIE and the major Territorial Authorities involved believe that the process is a success for all parties involved (claimants and respondents). However, there is still room for improvement due in part to a lack of perception and understanding of the scheme by the homeowner, their agents, and the parties involved in the building industry. The FAP scheme stands out as the optimum resolution process and the Territorial Authorities are in agreement that further publicity of the benefits of this scheme is required by both the MBIE and Territorial Authorities alike.

13. The cost of resolving weathertight claims has fluctuated but is getting progressively more expensive as Council resolves the uninsured and more difficult claims. Claim costs (including accruals) for 2012/2013 were $3.27 million. For 2011/2012 costs were $318,000, 2010/2011 $550,000 and 2009/2010 $900,000.

Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with the TYP budgets?

14. This report is for the information of Councillors.

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

15. Not applicable

Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?

16. Not applicable.

ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS

17. Yes, aligns with administration of laws around building and development.

Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the TYP?

18. Not applicable.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES

19. Not applicable.

Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?

20. The report is for information only. PLANNING COMMITTEE 7. 8. 2013

9 Cont’d

CONSULTATION FULFILMENT

21. Not applicable.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Planning Committee recommend that the Council receive this report

BACKGROUND (THE ISSUES)

22. The leaky building issue came into national focus in 2002, when the Government appointed a Weathertightness Overview Group to enquire into the weathertightness of buildings in New Zealand - in particular concerns regarding buildings that were leaking and causing decay. The subsequent (Hunn) report identified a number of factors that contributed to leaky buildings. Its conclusion was that this problem was caused by a systematic industry failure. The factors included the Building Act 1991 which moved from a prescriptive building code to a more liberal building system, which allowed the use of Private Certifiers and many new products and design methods, without adequate building controls. Coupled with this there was a lack of skilled builders and apprentices. A degradation of the quality of work being produced onsite by semi- skilled or less experienced workers was evident.

23. The combination of these changes contributed towards buildings failing to remain weathertight and becoming part of the leaky building problem.

24. As early as November 1994, newspapers started reporting that building experts were concerned with the problems being caused from stucco finishes being applied to modern houses. They reported that the plasterers applying the modern materials had insufficient skill in the application of such finishes and that they were a potential time bomb. The modern (monolithic) cladding systems used were generally textured wall surfaces made out of plaster on polystyrene or fibre cement sheets. Proper installation was important and these materials depended on the external sealing and painting to prevent moisture penetration. Design features which heightened the risk of leaky buildings included flat roofs, no eaves, (unflashed) recessed windows, solid balustrades, complex roof and deck design and penetrations through exterior claddings for handrails, downpipe fixings etc.

25. Following the media coverage, BRANZ (Building Research Association of New Zealand) ran seminars for the building industry on the dangers involved with wrongly applying modern plastered surfaces to house exteriors. In 1996 they published a work manual on “good stucco practice” to lift awareness in the industry.

26. In 1996 the New Zealand Building Code removed the regulatory requirement for all framing timber to be preservative treated. This followed a positive BRANZ recommendation that untreated framing would have a 50-year durability performance. Councils were previously concerned at the impact this untreated timber framing would have on the buildings in their areas and refused to approve this material. However, after the BRANZ confirmation that it was suitable for general use, the material was approved.

27. From 1998 on, the Building Industry Authority (BIA) was aware of serious problems with monolithic cladding systems in Canada and the United States. These overseas countries stopped the use of foam-based Exterior Insulated Foam (polystyrene systems) as a substrate for modern plaster - unless these were used with a cavity system to provide for the possibility of moisture penetration.

28. In 2002, the BIA engaged a Weathertightness Overview Group to investigate and report on what was becoming a serious national problem. The Hunn report concluded that there was a systemic failure across the industry. Two primary matters of concern were the risks and long- term dangers of the use of untreated timber (which support fungal growth when wet) and the problem with the modern external stucco claddings (monolithic claddings) being used as well as the lack of skill in their application. 28 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7. 8. 2013

9 Cont’d

29. With the increasing number of claims for leaky buildings in the late 1990s, and as a result of concerns about the cost of homeowners of pursuing such claims through the Courts, in 2002 Parliament established the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service (WHRS) and the Weathertight Homes Tribunal (WHT). The WHRS receives claim applications and provides assessment information, guidance and mediation services.

30. The Tribunal is a judicially independent Tribunal that provides an adjudication process as an alternative to the Courts for leaky building claims only. The Tribunal was intended to provide a low cost assessment of the weather-tightness problems with the house and to provide access to dispute resolutions service. The Tribunal has the power to award general damages, including those for mental stress and anxiety, as well as the costs for repair work to the home. A home owner can choose to use the services of the Tribunal or to use the Courts. Other types of building claims eg, subsidence, do not have access to the Tribunal and such claims need to be resolved through the Courts if they are not settled.

31. In the legislation, administered by the WHRS and the WHT, a weathertightness failure is defined as “a dwelling house into which water has penetrated as a result of any aspect of the design, construction or alteration of the dwellinghouse, or materials used in its construction or alteration".

32. This refers to water that has unintentionally penetrated the interior of the house. It is recognised that in some building designs it is expected that water will penetrate the primary cladding, but the design ensures the water will not cause damage. This is not a failure because the water has no opportunity to damage the interior structure of the dwelling. Weathertightness failure does not include water from internal sources such as bathrooms or kitchens.

33. In the December 2009 Price Waterhouse Coopers report the authors stated:

"Building professionals report that all houses will leak eventually and it is the ability to handle those leaks that determines if damage will occur. For example, a brick exterior is porous and will leak. Brick homes are, therefore, built with cavities and outlets at the bottom of walls to allow for drainage. Using this system, very few brick houses have experienced damage from water ingress".

34. When a dwelling is damaged by water ingress, there are invariably two causes to consider::

● the failure to prevent water ingress into the interior; and ● the dwelling’s inability to let water out and, hence, its inability to resist damage from water penetration.

Maintenance or the lack thereof, is also a critical factor.

35. Weathertight Homes Resolution Service (WHRS) - Financial Assistance Package (FAP) scheme was introduced on 28 July 2011. It provides that Council pays 25% only where the claimant is eligible (Government 25%, homeowner up to 50%) towards the remediation costs. The owners have the ability to involve other parties to the claim, such as builders and developers, in contributing towards their 50% contribution to the scheme. This could result in the homeowner potentially only funding a very small portion of the remediation. If not, the homeowner can make further claims against these other parties. in other forum. If required, the homeowner also has access to loan funding if they prove ‘capable’.

36. When the scheme became effective, existing claimants were given the opportunity to convert their WHRS claims to the FAP Scheme, provided they met certain eligibility criteria and applied by the end of October 2011.

37. We have had 77 claimants apply to be part of the FAP scheme, of which we have accepted 48 and declined 21 applications (generally because they are Certifier jobs and Council has not been involved, the Council had not completed all of the inspections and/or no code compliance certificate was issued, or remediation was completed prior to the scheme’s deadline). The remaining eight are currently under review for contribution under the FAP scheme. 29 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7. 8. 2013

9 Cont’d

Role of Council with weathertightness claims

38. Legally weathertightness claims involving the Council are based on the allegation that the Council has been negligent in approving the building consent or in the building inspections it carried out once a consent has been granted.

39. This liability for Councils in the building area comes from a court decision in the 1970s and the Council receives a number of claims each year in relation to its building processes. To manage this ongoing liability the Council has had Professional Indemnity Insurance. For claims prior to 2009, the Council has had an excess of $50,000 per claim with the insurer meeting the balance of any damages and costs. However, since July 2009, weathertight claims have been excluded from cover.

40. In common with other insurances policies, a condition of the Professional Indemnity's policies has been that once the Council makes a claim the insurer takes over responsibility for deciding how that claim is managed. The insurer also decides whether or not the claim is settled at mediation or otherwise. If a claim is not settled at mediation, then typically they would be dealt with in either the District or High Court, depending on the quantum of damages being sought, or WHT.

41. With building claims, often there are a number of parties involved, which may include the architects/designer, builder, subcontractors, Council and professional advisors such as engineers. If the Court or WHT finds there is liability on those parties then the Court or WHT also apportions the liability between those parties so that each of them is responsible for paying their portion of the damages as found by the Court or WHT. The liability is joint and several which means that if one of the parties is unable to meet their share of the cost of the claim the other liable parties have to pay that share.

42. At present any building claims (including a weathertightness claim) must be lodged with the Court or Weathertightness Homes Resolutions Services (WHRS) within 10 years of the date that the house was built or altered.

43. Building or alteration work on which a claim is based must have been completed within the 10 years preceding the date the claim is received by the WHRS.

44. The completion date is the date the house was habitable or that the alterations were fit to be used. The date of a Code Compliance Certificate will not necessary be accepted as the date of completion of a house - the Certificate could have been issued long after work was finished. An owner may be required to provide evidence on when the house was habitable, e.g. power connected.

45. Alterations must have changed or modified the original house design or materials. Home maintenance and minor repairs are unlikely to be considered alterations.

Christchurch City Data

46. Between 2000 and 2007 there were 10,725 single dwelling units built in Christchurch. Of these 1,774 were monolithic which is 16.5 per cent overall. These Christchurch percentages are considerably less than those seen nationally. Nationally, these were the percentages of monolithic buildings:

● 2000 – 40 per cent, 2001 - 37 per cent ● 2002 - 37 per cent, 2003 - 23 per cent ● 2004 - 18 per cent, 2005 - 16 per cent ● 2006 - 17 per cent, 2007 – 14 per cent ● 2008 - 14 per cent.

47. On the WHRS national database, there are currently 1,338 active claims involving 4,475 residential units. 30 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7. 8. 2013

9 Cont’d

48. Christchurch has 77 active claims (5.8% of the national total), involving 161 residential units. In addition, we have six claims involving weathertight allegations (of which some are inter-linked with other construction issues) progressing through the District or High Court system.

Council's Weathertight Insurance

51. The Council's insurer Riskpool has been progressively changing the terms of the Council's Professional Indemnity policy and insurance excess regarding weathertight claims.

52. Prior to 2006 Excess was No limit $10,000 2006 New weathertight No limit claims were given a $50,000 excess Between 2006 – All weathertight The insurance limit for multi-unit claims was set 2009 claims (including at $500,000 in 2006 retrospective open claims) had a $50,000 excess 2007 – 2008 All weathertight Insurance cover through QBE - all weathertight (QBE cover) claims had a claims have a limit collectively of $1 million for $50,000 excess the year 2008 – 2009 All weathertight Insurance cover returns to RiskPool - all (Fund Year 12) claims had a weathertight claims have a limit collectively of $50,000 excess $500,000 for the year

53. From 1 July 2009, all new claims for weathertightness are not covered by Riskpool and the Council is self insured. No insurance company today provides cover for Weathertight claims. 31 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7. 8. 2013

10. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

Attached.

32 7. 8. 2013

PLANNING COMMITTEE

RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

Section 48, Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

I move that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely item(s) 11 and 12.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter and the specific grounds under Section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

ITEM GENERAL SUBJECT OF REASON FOR PASSING THIS GROUND(S) UNDER NO. EACH MATTER TO BE RESOLUTION IN RELATION TO SECTION 48(1) FOR CONSIDERED EACH MATTER THE PASSING OF THIS RESOLUTION

11. DELEGATION TO SETTLE ON ) GOOD REASON TO CLAIM – MULTI UNIT ) WITHHOLD EXISTS WEATHERTIGHT CLAIM ) UNDER SECTION 7 ) ) SECTION 48(1)(a) 12. DELEGATION TO SETTLE ON ) CLAIM – MULTI UNIT ) WEATHERTIGHT CLAIM )

This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as follows:

ITEM REASON UNDER ACT SECTION PLAIN ENGLISH WHEN REPORT NO. REASON CAN BE RELEASED

11. Maintain legal 7(2)(g) Confidential Mediation of Not applicable professional privilege and 7(2)(i) Claim and Claim carry on, without prejudice settlement, and legal or disadvantage, advice about insurance negotiations issues 12. To maintain legal 7(2)(g) The report contains legal Not applicable professional privilege advice and strategy concerning mediation of a High Court claim and associated insurance implications 12. To enable Council to carry 7(2)(i) The report contains legal Not applicable out negotiations without advice and strategy prejudice concerning mediation of a High Court claim and associated insurance implications

Chairperson’s Recommendation: That the foregoing motion be adopted.

33 PLANNING COMMITTEE 7. 8. 2013

Note

Section 48(4) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 provides as follows:

“(4) Every resolution to exclude the public shall be put at a time when the meeting is open to the public, and the text of that resolution (or copies thereof):

(a) Shall be available to any member of the public who is present; and (b) Shall form part of the minutes of the local authority.”