This page is not a current Christchurch City Council document. Please read our disclaimer.
10 JULY 1996
A meeting of the Environmental Committee
was held on Wednesday 10 July 1996 at 4.00 pm
Councillors Oscar Alpers, Anna Crighton,
Newton Dodge, Pat Harrow, Lesley Keast,
Charles Manning and Barbara Stewart.
APOLOGIES: Nil.
The Committee reports that:
PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION
1. RESOURCE CONSENT FEES RR 3211
Officer responsible
Environmental Services Manager
Author
Environmental
Services Manager
Ken
Lawn
Corporate
Plan Output: Resource Consents
The purpose of this report is to recommend the reinstatement of charging for the costs of Councillors attending hearings for Resource Consents.
About 18 months ago a decision of the Planning Tribunal ruled that Councils had no power to charge for the cost of councillors involved in resource consent hearings. That decision has been appealed to the High Court, and the decision of the High Court has been to overturn that initial decision. The Council therefore now has the power to charge the cost of councillors time.
Under the Resource Management Act, fees can be set either by special order procedures, or by the consultative procedures under the Local Government Act. Including the fee schedule in the Annual Plan is normally our way of complying with the consultative procedure of the Act. However, because we were not entitled to charge these fees, these charges have not been included in the Annual Plan for the 1996/97 financial year. The introduction of these fees will therefore have to be by Special Order.
Recommendation: That pursuant to Section 36 of the Resource Management Act, the Council, by Special Order, add the charges set out below to the list of additional fees payable by applicants when a hearing is involved in a resource consent application.
Cost Of Elected Members Attending Hearings
| ||
| 1.
|
Hearing
time less than 1.5 hours
|
$180
|
| 2.
|
Hearing
time 1.5 - 3 hours
|
$270
|
| 3.
|
Hearing
time more than 3 hours
|
$540
|
Officer responsible
|
Author
|
| Environmental
Services Manager
|
Anita
Hansbury
Planning Assistant
|
| Corporate
Plan Output: City Plan
|
The purpose of this report is to recommend that Plan Change 39 to the City Section of the Christchurch Transitional District Plan be made operative from 5 August 1996.
Plan Change 39 is a privately requested change rezoning the "Warehouse Site" at Aldwins Road and Linwood Avenue corner (attached). It rezones approximately 2839 m2 of Commercial 2 land amending the rules of the zone, and approximately 3249 m2 of Residential 2P land to Commercial 2. This area of extended Commercial 2 zone has a reduced plot ratio of 0.7 whereas the remainder of the Linwood Shopping Centre Commercial 2 zone has the plot ratio of 0.6. The Change was heard by the hearings panel and the decision confirmed by the Council. No appeals to the Council decision have been received. The Plan Change can now therefore be made operative.
Recommendation: That pursuant to Clause 20 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991, Plan Change 39 be made operative on 5 August 1996.
3. PLAN CHANGES 3, 8, 22, 26 AND 39 - SERVICE STATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES, TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1977 RR 3244
Officer responsible
|
Author
|
| Environmental
Services Manager
|
Anita
Hansbury
Planning Assistant
|
| Corporate
Plan Output: City Plan
|
The purpose of this report is to recommend that the following Plan Changes be made operative from 5 August 1996.
- Plan Change 3 to the Riccarton District Scheme
- Plan Change 8 to the Waimairi District Scheme
- Plan Change 22 to the Heathcote District Scheme
- Plan Change 26 to the Paparua District Scheme and
- Plan Change 39 to the Christchurch District Scheme
The Christchurch City Council initiated the above Changes to the District Planning Schemes under its jurisdiction, under the Town and Country Planning Act 1977.
The purpose of the Changes is to recognise the effects of changing trends and deregulation in the oil industry on the character and location requirements of service stations. The Changes each make further provision for service stations in residential zones in a limited and controlled way. It is proposed
that service stations will be conditional uses on sites on classified roads which have a common boundary with, and are not divided by a road from commercially zoned sites and on sites on arterial roads where the residential character has been significantly altered by the presence of non-residential uses. In general, service stations are considered to be suitably located on the fringes of commercial centres. A list of criteria is included (attached), and the conditional use procedure will enable each proposed new service station to be examined in terms of the site suitability, potential effects on traffic flows, the amenities of residential neighbours, and the pattern of land use.
The Changes were notified in May and July 1990, heard by the hearings panel, and the decisions approving the Changes were confirmed by the Council. Two appeals were lodged against the Council's decisions. Two interim decisions were issued by the Planning Tribunal in 1992, and 1994, and the final decisions allowing the appeal in part and approving the Changes with amendments was issued on 17 June 1996. The Plan Changes can now be made operative.
Recommendation: That pursuant to Sections 55 and 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1977, the Council resolve to make Change 3 to the Riccarton District Scheme, Plan Change 8 to the Waimairi District Scheme, Plan Change 22 to the Heathcote District Scheme, Plan Change 26 to the Paparua District Scheme and, Plan Change 39 to the Christchurch District Scheme operative from 5 August 1996.
4. VERANDAH - 76 KENDAL AVENUE RR 3207
Officer responsible
|
Author
|
| Environmental
Services Manager
|
Bruce
Berryman, Senior Building Enforcement Officer
|
| Corporate
Plan Output: Enforcement
|
The purpose of this report is to seek authority from the Council to serve notice on a landowner to remove a verandah at 76 Kendal Avenue.
The Council has been receiving complaints regarding the condition of a verandah at the shops at 76 Kendal Avenue, at its corner with Charlcott Street.
The roofing material is in such need of repair that water is ponding on the verandah and stormwater is discharging directly on to the footpath below.
In winter this is creating a sheet of ice and already one elderly lady has suffered injury as a result.
The Council has approached the owner of the shops, Margaret Alexandra Grant, requesting her to repair the verandah, but to date no work has been carried out.
Clause 55 of the Council's Public Places and Signs Bylaw 1992 provides :
"(1) If the Council considers that the safety or the interests of the public (of which the Council shall be the sole judge) requires the removal of any verandah, the Council may, by resolution, revoke any permission granted for the erection of the verandah, and require the owner of the site on which the building to which the verandah is annexed or of which it forms a part, to remove the verandah, and that owner shall, within seven days from the receipt of a notice from the Council to that effect, take down and remove the verandah at that owner's expense. (2) If that owner fails to remove the verandah within the time stipulated in the notice the Council may take down and remove the verandah at the expense of that owner, and for that purpose officers of the Council may enter into and upon the building and premises of that owner. (3) Where a verandah is removed pursuant to this clause the Council shall not be liable for any flashing, making good, or other work which may be rendered necessary or desirable through the removal of the verandah or for any damage caused by or arising out of the removal or to pay any compensation in respect of the revocation of permission or removal of the verandah."
The Bylaw does not give the Council the power to carry out repair work itself, but if the Council believes that it is necessary in the public interest, then the Council may require the removal of the verandah. The Council has been advised that the verandah has leaked for a number of years and today there could well be structural problems regarding the verandah which require its removal.
If the Council passes the recommendation set out below, then a notice would be served on Mrs Grant giving her a period of 14 days to take down the verandah. If she does not take down the verandah within that time then the Council may take down the verandah and invoice her for the costs.
If Mrs Grant chooses to repair the verandah within that period of time, then the Council can withdraw its notice requiring the removal.
Recommendation: 1. That the Council revoke the permission granted for the erection of the verandah at 76 Kendal Avenue.
2. That the Council require Margaret Alexandra Grant to remove the verandah within fourteen days of receipt of a notice from the Council.
3. That if Margaret Alexandra Grant fails to remove the verandah within that fourteen day time period the Council take down and remove the verandah at her expense.
5. COUNCIL DELEGATIONS : DOG CONTROL ACT 1996 RR3279
Officer responsible
|
Author
|
| Environmental
Services Manager
|
David
Rolls
|
| Corporate
Plan Output: Animal Control
|
The purpose of this report is to recommend the delegation of a number of the Council's powers under the Dog Control Act 1996 to enable the Act to be administered in an efficient manner.
The Dog Control Act 1996 came into full effect on 1 July 1996. It repeals the Dog Control and Hydatids Act 1982. The 1996 Act is similar to the 1982 Act. It does however contain a number of important new provisions. These include -
- Increased powers of Dog Control Officers and Dog Rangers.
- Power to classify dog owners who commit offences under the Act, as probationary owners.
- Power to disqualify, from being the owner of a dog, probationary owners who commit further offences under the Act.
- Power to classify particular dogs as dangerous.
- The use of infringement notices (instant fines) in respect of certain offences under the Act.
It is recommended that the Council make the following delegations:
1. To the Resource Management Hearings Panel:
(a) To hear and determine any objection, pursuant to section 22, to the classification of any person as a probationary owner;
(b) To hear and determine any objection, pursuant to section 26, to the disqualification of any person from being the owner of any dog;
(c) To hear and determine any objection, pursuant to section 31, to the classification of any dog as a dangerous dog;
(d) To hear and determine any objection, pursuant to section 55, to any requirement of a notice issued in respect of a barking dog;
2. To the Environmental Services Manager:
(a) To appoint Dog Control Officers and other staff pursuant to section 11;
(b) To appoint Dog Rangers pursuant to section 12;
(c) To authorise any person other than a Dog Control Officer to issue an infringement notice under section 66(1);
3. To Team Leader Animal Control, Senior Dog Control Officer, Senior Clerk (Animal Control) (severally);
(a) To institute any prosecution for an offence under the Act and to make any decision in any matter relating to any such prosecution;
(b) To commence, pursuant to Section 66, proceedings in accordance with section 21 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 where an infringement notice has been issued and to make any decision in any matter relating to such proceedings;
(c) To classify any person as a probationary owner pursuant to section 21;
(d) To disqualify any person from being the owner of any dog pursuant to section 25;
(e) To extend any period of disqualification, pursuant to section 28(6);
(f) To classify any dog as a dangerous dog, pursuant to section 31;
(g) To remit, reduce, or refund dog control fees or part thereof, pursuant to section 39(3);
4. To Team Leader Animal Control, Senior Dog Control Officer, Animal Shelter Supervisor (severally);
(a) To consent to the disposal of the dangerous dog pursuant to section 32(1)(f);
(b) To dispose of any dog pursuant to sections 69 and 70(7);
(c) To exercise all of the Council's powers pursuant to section 71 (retention of dog threatening public safety);
5. To Team Leader Animal Control, Dog Control Officers, Senior Clerk (Animal Control) (severally);
(a) To provide register information pursuant to section 35(4);
(b) To determine whether or not a dog should be delivered into custody of a Dog Control Officer or Dog Ranger pursuant to section 35(5)(c);
(c) To require a written statement that a dog is a working dog of a specified class pursuant to section 40(1);
(d) To require production of a certificate that a dog has been neutered pursuant to section 40(2);
(e) To issue a replacement label or disc pursuant to section 46(3).
Recommendation: That the Council adopt the above mentioned delegations.
6. BANKS PENINSULA - DOG CONTROL CONTRACT RR 3292
| Officer
responsible
|
Author
|
| Environmental
Services Manager
|
Ken
Lawn
|
| Corporate
Plan Output: Animal Control
|
The purpose of this report is to seek the Council's authority to enter into a contract with the Banks Peninsula District Council (the District). Under that contract the Christchurch City Council (the City) is to provide the District with the services of the City's Dog Control Officers and Stock Rangers, and also to provide the District with the use of the City's dog pound facilities at Bromley.
As advised in last months agenda, the Council's Animal Control Section is proposing that the City enter into a contract with the District whereby the City provides the District with the services of its Dog Control Officers and Stock Rangers in the Lyttelton Harbour basin and Port Levy areas. The City is also to make available to the District the City's dog pound facilities at Metro Place as the dog pound facility for the District.
The District shall continue to maintain and operate its own stock pounds.
The essential terms of the Contract include:
1. A term of one year to commence on 1 July 1996, renewable by mutual agreement.
2. A fixed contract price of $17,200 (GST exclusive) for the one year term.
3. The City to provide its own Dog Control Officers to enforce provisions of the Dog Control Act 1996 and the District's bylaws, and to carry out dog control patrols in the areas referred to above.
4. The City to provide staff to act as rangers for stock control purposes under the Impounding Act 1955 in the areas referred to above.
5. The City to provide a 24 hour/365 day contact and callout service for dog control and stock control matters.
6. The City to undertake a dog control education programme directed at dog owners, schools and interested community groups.
7. The City to furnish the District with monthly reports on dog and stock control activities carried out by the City within the abovementioned areas.
The performance of this Contract will necessarily involve Christchurch City Council Dog Control Officers, Stock Rangers, and vehicles operating within the above mentioned areas of Banks Peninsula's district.
Section 16(2) of the Dog Control Act 1996 authorises two or more territorial authorities to enter into an agreement whereby the services of Dog Control Officers employed by one of those authorities are made available to any other of those authorities. Section 67 of the Act authorises two or more territorial authorities to jointly provide pound facilities for the purposes of that Act. Section 247D of the Local Government Act 1974 provides general authorisation for one local authority to contract with another to perform any of the other's functions.
Recommendation: That the Environmental Services Manager be authorised to enter into, on behalf of the Council, an agreement embodying the above mentioned terms and such other the terms as he considers appropriate whereunder the Christchurch City Council shall;
(a) pursuant to Section 16(2) of the Dog Control Act 1996 make available to the Banks Peninsula District Council the services of the Christchurch City Council's Dog Control Officers; and
(b) pursuant to Section 67 of the Dog Control Act 1996 provide dog pound facilities on behalf of the Banks Peninsula District Council; and
(c) pursuant to Section 247D of the Local Government Act 1974 provide staff to act as rangers for the purposes of the Impounding Act 1955 for the Banks Peninsula District Council.
7. LONG TERM URBAN GROWTH STRATEGY FOR CHRISTCHURCH RR 3251
The Committee received a report suggesting a collaborative approach with adjoining Councils and the Canterbury Regional Council, to accommodate a long term urban growth of Christchurch.
In essence, the new City Plan has taken a reasonably conservative approach to rezoning additional land in the light of population trends over the past 20 years.
However, in the last three years there has been a sharp increase in growth rates. The response to this has been firstly, to give investigations into the Halswell/Wigram option urgency, and secondly last August to set up an officer working group with adjoining Councils and the CRC to investigate the need for a long term urban strategy sooner than originally expected.
Three significant conclusions can be drawn from the reports prepared by the Working Group:
* Assuming that growth continues at or near present levels, Christchurch
and surrounding districts will face a shortfall of around 850 hectares of
residential land by 2,016 even taking into account additional zoning in the
proposed city plan.
* Secondly, the options for locating future growth within Christchurch or
other districts, are limited due to constraints imposed by natural resources or
servicing limitations.
* The third major point is that there is a need to establish a cross
organisational "structure" to co-ordinate and drive the required work. The
structure should provide for the participation of the five adjoining Councils
involved and the Regional Council to ensure political and community ownership
of the process.
CONCLUSION
There is agreement between officers of affected local authorities on the need for a long term urban strategy and to consider options outside Christchurch City. Growth pressures and expectations by the community for action, justify the setting up of a process involving elected members, community involvement and technical advice, through which an agreed strategy can be developed.
Recommendation: 1. That the Council inform the Waimakariri, Hurunui, Banks Peninsula and Selwyn District Councils and Canterbury Regional Council that it supports the formation of:
(a) A Joint Committee on Urban Growth comprising elected members of the above local authorities to oversee the preparation of a long term urban growth strategy for Christchurch and its surrounding area.
(b) A Joint Working Group on Urban Growth comprising staff of the above Councils.
2. That the City Council be represented on the Joint Committee by four representatives, with the other local authorities providing a maximum of two.
3. That the Joint Committee and Joint Working Group be serviced by the City Council.
4. That the City Council's representatives be Councillors Oscar Alpers, Charles Manning, Lesley Keast and Carole Evans, with Councillor Newton Dodge to be proxy for any of these members.
PART B - ITEMS DEALT WITH BY THE COMMITTEE AND
REPORTED FOR INFORMATION ONLY
8. PETITION - COWLISHAW & PATTON STREET RESIDENTS
This petition was referred to the Environmental Committee from the June Council meeting for a Sub-Committee comprising representatives of Environmental Committee and Hagley Ward Councillors to be appointed to meet with the petitioners to discuss the broader issues associated with the granting of resource consents for such activities.
Arrangements are to be made for Committee representatives to meet with Councillor Denis O'Rourke and staff in the first instance to discuss the principles involved.
The Committee resolved that Councillors Anna Crighton, Charles Manning and Carole Evans be the Environmental Committee's representatives at the meeting with the petitioners.
9. GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES RR 3259
The Environmental Policy & Planning Manager reported on the following items of interest to the Committee.
(i) WINSTON CHURCHILL FELLOWSHIP
A report from Sarah Duffel, Assistant Planner on crime prevention through environmental design, is likely to be a topic for a forthcoming seminar for the Committee.
(ii) CHRISTCHURCH RETAIL MODEL
In discussing the benefit of having a computer based retail model to measure the effect of shopping patterns on new retail developments, the importance of environmental impact reports for any major development was raised. This includes any associated changes to roading / transportation patterns.
It was resolved that environmental impact reports be prepared and considered for any major development change proposed by Council units.
(iii) SUMNER PLANNING
The impact of past and proposed developments on the unique character of Sumner village was raised. The special character was seen as something worthy of protecting.
(iv) IMMIGRATION POLICY TIGHTENED
An updated breakdown of race of the immigrants making up the city's population growth is to be provided to the Committee.
(v) LONG SERVING OFFICER RETIREMENTS
It was resolved that the Committee's thanks be conveyed to Messrs Kit Iversen, Mike Shaw and Ken Twyman, who are retiring from the Council's service.
10. SOUTHERN REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY - REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES RR 3279
The Committee received the report from the Principal Environmental Health Officer advising that an examination is being undertaken, jointly with officers of the Waimakariri District Council, of the possibility of preparing and making a proposal to undertake Core Public Health Services for the Canterbury area under contract to the Southern Regional Health Authority.
It is intended that a small group of officers will undertake the further analysis needed to prepare a proposal for consideration as to making a formal approach to the Southern Regional Health Authority. The date for receipt of Stage 1 proposals is the 16 August 1996.
Councillor Stewart sought an assurance that this was not a means of the Council becoming involved in the provision of health services.
While the present proposal is in the area of public health services only, no assurance can be given that the Council will not consider its possible involvement in the provision of other health services in the future.
11. ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT RR 3255
Following a seminar on waterways and wetlands the Committee will meet in late July to review the level of service for each of the asset areas. The final stage will be a tradeoff workshop to determine the package of fully costed level of service.
12. WASTE MANAGEMENT UNIT
RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATIONS RR 3087
The Committee received a report from the Waste Management Unit on the progress with four resource consent applications involving the Liquid Waste Section, ie:
* Biosolids reuse in Forests
* Biosolids reuse on Bromley Farm
* Discharge of treated effluent from the Christchurch Wastewater Treatment
Plant
* Belfast Wastewater Treatment Plant
The Committee will receive further details plus a timetable at its next meeting.
The meeting concluded at 5.20 pm.
CONSIDERED THIS 24TH DAY OF JULY 1996 MAYOR
CHAIRMAN OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE
CURLETTS ROAD/WIGRAM ROAD RR 2519
Officer responsible
|
Author
|
| Environmental
Services Manager
|
Anita
Hansbury
|
| Corporate
Plan Output: City Plan
|
The purpose of this report is to seek the Council's approval to make Plan Change 24 to the Paparua and City Sections of the Christchurch Transitional Plan operative from 5 August 1996.
Plan Change 24, which was initiated by the Council, provides for the establishment of an Agribusiness Centre, involving a range of rural-related services and facilities, on a site bounded by Curletts Road, Wigram Road and the Heathcote River. The change will enable the Canterbury Saleyards and A & P Showgrounds to relocate. The Change includes a concept plan which aims to mitigate adverse effects created by the activities by defining their location within the site and showing the new alignment of the proposed Southern Motorway. The Change was heard by the Commissioner and his recommendation was adopted by the Council as the decision of the Council. One appeal was received by the Council. It was heard by the Planning Tribunal and the decision was issued approving the Change and making some amendments to the Change.
An appeal against the decision of the Tribunal was lodged with the High Court by the appellants, Mr and Mrs Hodge. The appeal has been subsequently withdrawn.
The Plan Change (copy attached) can therefore be made operative.
Recommendation: That pursuant to Clause 20 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991, Plan Change 24 be made operative on 5 August 1996.
CONSIDERED THIS 24TH DAY OF JULY 1996 MAYOR