IN THE MATTER OF the Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 AND IN THE MATTER OF proposals notified for incorporation into a Christchurch Replacement District Plan Date of decision: 16 November 2016 Hearing Panel: Sir John Hansen (Chair), Environment Judge Hassan (Deputy Chair), Ms Jane Huria, Ms Sarah Dawson, Dr Phil Mitchell _____________________________________________________________________ Decision to make Minor Corrections to Decision DECISION 43 Central City — Stages 2 and 3 (and relevant definitions and associated planning maps) _____________________________________________________________________ Outcomes: Proposals changed as per Schedule 1 2 Background [1] The Hearings Panel (‘the Panel’) issued its decision on Central City Stage 2 and 3 (‘Decision 43’) on 20 September 2016. [2] Decision 43 stated that any party who considers we need to make any minor corrections under cl 16 of the OIC must file a memorandum specifying the relevant matters within 14 working days of the date of this decision.1 In response, we received the following: (a) Three separate memoranda from the Christchurch City Council (‘the Council’) requesting minor corrections; 2 (b) A memorandum of counsel for Ryman Healthcare Limited (‘Ryman’) and the Retirement Villages Association of New Zealand Inc (‘RVA’) requesting minor corrections to Chapter 14, Residential and Chapter 15, Commercial of Decision 43 (‘the Ryman RVA memorandum’).3 (c) A memorandum of counsel for Carter Group Limited (‘Carter Group’), filed in response to the Council Memorandum of 10 October 2016 (‘the Carter Group memorandum’).4 [3] We will first address the requests for minor corrections to Decision 43 raised in the memoranda from the Council and then those requests from other parties. Jurisdiction to make minor corrections [4] Clause 16 of Schedule 3 to the OIC provides as follows: (1) The hearings panel may, at any time, issue an amendment to a decision to correct a minor mistake or defect in a decision of the panel. 1 At [312]. 2 Memorandum of Counsel for Christchurch City Council requesting corrections to Decision 43, Central City, dated 10 October 2016; Memorandum of Counsel for Christchurch City Council requesting further corrections to Decision 43, Central City, dated 13 October 2016; and Memorandum of Counsel for Christchurch City Council requesting further correction to Decision 43, Central City, dated 20 October 2016. 3 Memorandum of Counsel for Ryman Healthcare Limited and the Retirement Villages Association of New Zealand Inc, dated 10 October 2016. 4 Memorandum of Counsel for Carter Group Limited 9Submitter 3602), dated 4 October 2016. Minor corrections to Decision 43 Central City 3 (2) This power includes the power to amend or correct a proposal, provided that the amendment or correction is made before the proposal becomes operative in accordance with clause 16 of this order. [5] The Council, in its first corrections memorandum, has set out the jurisdictional requirements to make minor corrections to our Decision.5 We accept the Council correctly outlines the jurisdictional requirements to make corrections to our Decision. To the extent we have accepted the corrections sought by the Council and submitters; these meet the requirements of cl 16 of Schedule 3. CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL’S CORRECTIONS MEMORANDA [6] The Council provided the Panel with three separate memoranda requesting minor corrections. The first memorandum sets out the majority of the requests sought and also raises matters of clarification. The Council’s second memorandum raises two distinct matters. Firstly, seeking to correct a legal description of the property at 52 Rolleston Avenue (referred to in various rules in Chapter 14), and, secondly, clarifying its position on a matter raised in its first memorandum around referring to matters of discretion as ‘rules’. The third memorandum relates solely to the applicability of built form standards to activities requiring consent under Rule 15.10.1.2 C1. [7] We address the requests below, however, we first deal with the preliminary matters, requests for clarification and other points raised in the Council’s memoranda. Preliminary matters Planning Maps [8] The Council’s first memorandum included a full set of planning maps for the Central City ‘for information purposes only’. The maps provided by the Council grey out land where the zone has been decided as part of an earlier decision or where a decision on zoning was deferred from Decision 43. This includes: 5 Section 2 of the Council’s first memorandum. Minor corrections to Decision 43 Central City 4 (a) sites notified with a Central City Guest Accommodation Zone that are deferred to the General Rules and Procedures Hearing; (b) sites notified with a Central City Residential Zone and a Scheduled Activity (Guest Accommodation) Overlay that are deferred to the General Rules and Procedures Hearing; and (c) sites notified with a Central City Avon River Precinct (Papa Ōtākaro), Central City Community Park and Central City Water and Margins Zoning that are already decided through Decision 35 (Open Space). [9] We also note that, appropriately, the maps grey out that part of the Central City confirmed as Central City Residential Zone as part of Decision 21 - Specific Purpose (Flat Land Recovery) Zone. [10] For completeness, where we make minor corrections in this decision that impact on the planning maps, we direct changes accordingly. Zone References [11] The Council has clarified its approach to Central City Zone names in [5.3] – [5.5] of the first memorandum. We accept that the Council’s interpretation is correct. Requests for clarification Objective 3.3.8 – Revitalising the Central City [12] The Council observed that Decision 43 is silent on the notified additions and suggested amendments to Objective 3.3.8 and seeks clarification whether we deferred our decision on Objective 3.3.8 or omitted to include it in Decision 43.6 [13] We accept it was an error to exclude Objective 3.3.8 from Schedule 1 of Decision 43. Noting that matters relating to this objective were largely resolved at the 6 At [6.2] and [6.3] of the Council’s first memorandum. Minor corrections to Decision 43 Central City 5 close of the hearing, we accept the Council’s closing legal submission and the revised wording therein.7 We confirm Objective 3.3.8 as included in Schedule 1. Specific Purpose School Zone – Christ’s College [14] Christ’s College sought the Specific Purpose School Zone for properties at 6-22 Armagh Street, 2-19 Gloucester Street and 64 Rolleston Avenue. These sites were notified as Central City Residential Zone. [15] The evidence of both Ms Dixon and Mr Blair for Council supported the rezoning, which we accept. The Planning Maps attached as Appendix B to the Council’s first memorandum correctly show this land zoned Specific Purpose School. We confirm as such. ‘Relevant points of note’ raised by the Council [16] The Council has set out a number of points of note which we address in turn.8 [17] Firstly, we accept the titles provided by the Council for Figures 7.11 to 7.13 of the Chapter 7 Transport. We include these in the revised chapters attached as Schedule 1. [18] The Council correctly notes that at the date of its first corrections memorandum there was an outstanding request from the Council seeking minor corrections to Decision 40 (Stage 2 Utilities). As such, the Council has not repeated those requests in its suggested amendments to Decision 43. [19] Since this time, the Panel has made a decision on the minor corrections sought to Decision 40.9 For completeness, those corrections are included in the updated schedule attached to this decision. 7 Council’s closing legal submission pages 9 and 10, and Schedule 3, Page 6. 8 At [7.1] to [7.8] of the Council’s first memorandum. 9 Supplementary Decision to Chapter 11: Utilities, Energy and Infrastructure including minor corrections to Decision 40. Minor corrections to Decision 43 Central City 6 [20] The Carter Group seek to increase the maximum building height for the Avon Hotel site at 356 Oxford Terrace from 11m to 14m. This matter was deferred until our decision on Chapter 6. The Council has chosen to show this site with an 11m height limit on the Central City Height Overlay Map. In response, the Carter Group respectfully suggested that it is more appropriate for the height maps to simply show the Avon Hotel land as grey until a decision on the height limit has been made.10 However, since the requests were made, Decision 56 confirms the maximum building height for this site as 14m. [21] At [7.6] the Council notes that it has sought further amendments to the Specific Purpose Cemetery Zone through the Natural and Cultural Heritage hearings. Where we have accepted the Council’s amendments in our decision on Chapter 9,11 these are reflected in Schedule 1. [22] The Council notes that some of the amendments directed to the Commercial and Transport Chapters by the Lyttelton Port Recovery Plan were not reflected in Decision 43. The Council including suggested amendments to ensure consistency. We accept these amendments and include these in Schedule 1. Corrections [23] Attachment A to the Council’s first memorandum sets out a number of the requested corrections sought to Schedule 1 of Decision 43. The Council’s request states: [3.1] A number of minor corrections are sought simply to rectify mistakes or inaccuracies or to assist users with navigating the Plan, rather than the substance (merits) of the affected provisions. The requested corrections, and reasons for them, are recorded in Appendix A, Table 1 to this application. [24] We note that a large number of the corrections relate to consistency of phrasing, grammatical or numbering errors, and style changes we have made to earlier decisions.