BEFORE THE CHRISTCHURCH REPLACEMENT DISTRICT PLAN HEARINGS PANEL IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 AND IN THE MATTER of the Natural and Cultural Heritage Proposal including provisions from other proposals MEMORANDUM OF COUNSEL SETTING OUT UPDATED STATEMENT OF ISSUES FOR NATURAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE (STAGE 3) INCLUDING PROVISIONS FROM OTHER PROPOSALS THAT WILL BE HEARD ALONGSIDE THIS PROPOSAL 29 OCTOBER 2015 Barristers & Solicitors M G Conway / M J Jagusch Telephone: +64-4-499 4599 Facsimile: +64-4-472 6986 Email: [email protected] / [email protected] DX SX11174 PO Box 2402 WELLINGTON 26932875_2.docx Page 1 MAY IT PLEASE THE PANEL 1. This memorandum of counsel is filed on behalf of the Christchurch City Council (Council) as directed at the pre-hearing meeting for the Stage 3 Natural and Cultural Heritage Hearing held at 4pm on Wednesday 28 October 2015. The purpose of this memorandum is to: 1.1 provide an updated Statement of Issues for the hearing (at Attachment A); 1.2 provide an updated list of relevant definitions for the hearing, including definitions from other hearings that will be heard alongside this proposal (at Attachment B); 1.3 provide an updated Statement of Issues from other hearings that will be heard alongside this proposal (at Attachment C); and 1.4 provide an updated list of site specific requests to add, amend or delete specific scheduled ecological or heritage items (at Attachment D). DATED this 29th day of October 2015 ___________________________________ M G Conway / M J Jagusch Counsel for Christchurch City Council 26932875_2.docx Page 1 ATTACHMENT A UPDATED STATEMENT OF ISSUES – NATURAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE CHAPTER The list below sets out the issues identified for the Natural and Cultural Heritage chapter, with updates following the pre-hearing meeting on 28 October 2015 shaded in grey. GENERAL / ALL OF CHAPTER MATTERS STATEMENT OF EXPECTATIONS Issue 1(a) Is the proposal consistent with the Statement of Expectations? As an example, do the objectives and policies clearly state the outcomes intended and is the plan clear? Issue 1(b) Is the structure of the plan easy to use? Is the split and cross- linkages between chapter 9 and other chapters, in particular chapter 8 subdivision and earthworks, chapter 11 utilities and chapter 19 clear? CONSISTENCY WITH STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS AND RECOVERY PLANS, Issue 1(c) Is the proposal consistent with the Strategic Decisions decision and any relevant Recovery Plans? NGĀI TAHU MANAWHENUA Issue 1(d) Is Chapter 9 consistent with the strategic directions objective for Ngāi Tahu Manawhenua, in particular have historic and contemporary connections, and cultural and spiritual values, associated with the land, water and other taonga of the district been recognised and provided for? 26932875_2.docx Page 2 Issue 1(da) Do the objectives, policies, rules and matters of discretion proposed by Ngai Tahu appropriately recognise and provide for the protection of sites and practices of Ngai Tahu cultural significance? DEFINITIONS Issue 1(e) Are there any defined terms deleted as part of Stage 1 that should be reinstated as part of this Proposal? MAPPING Issue 1(f) Are the matters relevant to the Proposal shown on the planning maps clear and easy to use? UTILITIES Issue 1(g) Should amendments be made to the Proposal to make it clear all rules relating to utilities are provided in Chapter 11? GENERAL Issue 1(h) Do the strategic directions appropriately cover off matters relating to water quality including the protection of freshwater features and values and the life supporting capacity of water, or should a new Strategic Direction Objective be added? 26932875_2.docx Page 3 CHAPTER TOPIC 9.1 - INDIGENOUS BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEMS PROCESS AND APPROACH TO PROTECTION OF SIGNIFICANT INDIGENOUS VEGETATION AND HABITATS OF SIGNIFICANT INDIGENOUS FAUNA Issue 2(a) Is the approach adopted in the Proposal appropriate to manage indigenous biodiversity under section 6(c) and 31 of the RMA? Submitters have raised issues relating to the balance between non- regulatory methods, as opposed to a rule based approach. Issue 2(b) Was the process for identification of sites of ecological significance appropriate? Issue 2(c) Should the location and information regarding a site of ecological significance on private land be publically available or held in a silent file? OBJECTIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK Issue 2(d) Do the objectives and policies give effect to the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement (CRPS) and the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), or should they provide for more or less protection/recognition? Issue 2(e) Are the objectives and policies appropriate with reference to section 6(c) of the RMA? Submissions seek the inclusion of reference to "avoid, remedy or mitigate". Issue 2(f) Do the policies clearly express the approach to protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna? In particular, submissions seek amendments to provisions relating to differentiation between management of sites of ecological significance and other indigenous vegetation. 26932875_2.docx Page 4 Issue 2(g) Is biodiversity offsetting appropriately provided for in the Proposal? This includes consideration of: - Is a policy necessary to provide guidance or can the RMA or national policy guidance be relied on? - If retained, should the policy be linked to other policies? - If retained, what improvements are necessary to make the policy more relevant and clear, address residual effects and provide guidance around when the policy applies? Issue 2(h) Should the policies include broader recognition of ecosystem functions, ecological corridors and effects of activities occurring outside a site of ecological significance? Issue 2(i) Do the policies need to better reflect the provisions and ensure the language and intent is clear? Issue 2(j) Is the terminology and references to indigenous biodiversity used in the policies appropriate? Should reference be limited to indigenous biodiversity or to biodiversity generally? Issue 2(k) Is there a need to give particular recognition to indigenous biodiversity in the coastal environment or other specific areas? Issue 2(l) Should the policies clearly express that the schedule is not comprehensive and is a work in progress? In particular, does there need to be recognition in the policies of the on-going work of adding to the schedule and working with landowners and other groups? Issue 2(m) Is it appropriate to link indigenous vegetation clearance outside of a site of ecological significance to a requirement for an ecological assessment as part of the process? 26932875_2.docx Page 5 Issue 2(n) Do the policies sufficiently recognise non-regulatory methods? Should there be additional non-regulatory methods included? MANAGING ACTIVITIES WITHIN A SITE OF ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE Issue 2(o) Do the rules sufficiently recognise existing activities and the ability for landowners to continue to undertake appropriate activities in a site of ecological significance? Issue 2(p) Do the exemptions for indigenous vegetation clearance sufficiently allow for activities that may be necessary for farming operations, flood protection works, hazard mitigation works, walking tracks, maintenance and upgrade of road corridors and other strategic infrastructure? Issue 2(q) Do the provisions provide sufficient certainty that grazing can continue within a site of ecological significance? As part of this issue, submissions have sought new definitions for improved pasture or regenerating indigenous vegetation. Issue 2(r) Are the provisions managing sites of ecological significance appropriate? In relation to this issue, submissions have raised issues relating to: (a) whether the exemptions for fencing should only allow maintenance of existing fencing rather than construction of new fencing; (b) should a new provision be included to manage plantation forestry within a site of ecological significance; and (c) is the activity status appropriate for indigenous vegetation clearance in sites of ecological significance. Issue 2(s) Are the definitions related to indigenous biodiversity and ecosystems appropriate and clear? 26932875_2.docx Page 6 MANAGING INDIGENOUS VEGETATION CLEARANCE OUTSIDE OF A SITE OF ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE Issue 2(t) Are the minimum areas for clearance and indigenous vegetation types specified for clearance of indigenous vegetation outside of a site of ecological significance appropriate? Issue 2(u) Should the list of vegetation/habitat types be relocated to a policy or appendix? Issue 2(v) Are the provisions relating to management of indigenous vegetation outside of Significant Ecological Sites clear in how and where they apply? This should include consideration of whether the clearance of indigenous vegetation is appropriately provided for (e.g. should a time frame for yearly clearance allowed be included), and whether the provisions should apply to all zones in the District (including both urban and rural areas). MATTERS OF DISCRETION FOR MANAGING THE EFFECTS OF ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING CLEARANCE, ON INDIGENOUS BIODIVERSITY Issue 2(w) Is it necessary to add further matters of discretion to manage the effects of activities on indigenous biodiversity, including water bodies? RECOGNITION OF NGĀI TAHU VALUES IN RELATION TO INDIGENOUS BIODIVERSITY Issue 2(x) Does the policy framework sufficiently reflect Ngāi Tahu values and relationship