17. 12. 97

CITY PLAN HEARINGS COMMITTEE

5 DECEMBER 1997

A meeting of the City Plan Hearings Committee
was held on Friday 5 December 1997 at 10.30 am

PRESENT:	Councillor Charles Manning (Chairman), Councillors David Cox, Anna Crighton, Newton Dodge, Lesley Keast, Margaret Murray and Mrs Cushla Dwyer, Mrs Maria Tait, Messrs Rex Arbuckle, Alex Clark and Bill Edwards.
APOLOGIES:	Apologies for absence were received and accepted from Councillor David Buist and Mr Maurice Nutira.

The Committee reports that:

PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION

1.

DESIGNATION OF LAND FOR EXPANSION OF CHRISTCHURCH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

RR 6696

 

Officer responsible	Author
Environmental Services Manager	R C Nixon
Corporate Plan Output: City Plan

The purpose of this report is to present the Hearing Commissioner's findings on the requirement by Christchurch International Airport Ltd to designate 100ha of land for Airport purposes.

In 1994 various requiring authorities were requested to advise the Council under the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act of any requirements for designations required to be incorporated within the City Plan.

Among those responses received was one from the Christchurch International Airport Limited (CIAL) for requirement to designate an additional 100 hectares of land for airport purposes adjacent to Russley Road, Avonhead Road and Grays Road. This land was identified as being necessary for the expansion of air freight facilities. In addition, the area concerned was also incorporated into the City Plan as part of the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone.

Councillors will be aware that decisions on the City Plan Objectives, Policies and Rules will not be issued until after the hearings have ended and this is expected to take place about August 1998. However, designations are in a different statutory position and legal advice indicates that decisions on these can be issued prior to the issue of decisions generally on the City Plan. It should also be noted that doing so will not compromise the integrity of the decisions made on the City Plan because designations are stand alone procedures. Issuing decisions separately on Objectives, Policies and Rules would create major problems in respect to the consistency of plan provisions and is also an option which has been firmly discouraged by the Environment Court.

In addition, the Airport Company have indicated that urgency is a matter of great concern to them, because of the need to provide additional air site freight facilities at an early stage.

Because CIAL is mainly owned by the Christchurch City Council, a commissioner was employed to hear submissions on the designation. The Commissioner's recommendation must be submitted to the Council for approval. The Council then issues its recommendation to CIAL under Section 171 of the Resource Management Act. The Commissioner's recommendation has now come to hand and is attached to this report. It should be noted at this point that the Council only makes a recommendation on designations to the requiring authority, and not a decision.

The Commissioner has recommended that the requirement be confirmed, but only in respect of some 45 hectares of the 100 hectares sought. The Commissioner has advised, having considered legal ramifications, that it is not necessary for him to identify which part of this area constitutes the 45 hectares, but this should be determined by the requiring authority (CIAL) as part of its decision on the Council's recommendation. Upon receiving the Council's recommendation, under Section 171 of the Resource Management Act, CIAL (under Section 172, Resource Management Act) must advise the Council whether it rejects the Council's recommendation or accepts it or accepts it in part. Upon this decision being received the Council will then advise any submitters or owners or occupiers of land affected by the requirement who will then have a right of reference to the Environment Court (as would the Council if it were dissatisfied with the decision).

Recommendation:

That the recommendation of Commissioner D Collins be adopted as the Council's recommendation to the requiring authority (CIAL) in respect of the proposed designation to extend the area of Christchurch International Airport.

 

2. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT - TANGATA WHENUA ISSUES RR 6732

Officer responsible	Author
Environmental Services Manager	Committee Chairman, Councillor Charles Manning
Corporate Plan Output: City Plan

Two matters were brought to the attention of the City Plan Hearings Committee which are more appropriately dealt with by the Strategy and Resources Committee.

1. Te Runanga O Rapaki have as their area of interest an area based on the Lyttelton Harbour and extending to the ridge line of the Port Hills. While the City Plan can make comments on the need to consult with Te Runanga on matters affecting this area, it would not comment on relationships between Te Runanga and the Council's representative on the Summit Road Protection Authority. Te Runanga O Rapaki clearly wish to have consultations with the City's representative and such representation is appropriate. The most convenient solution may be for the City to include consultation with Te Runanga O Rapaki as part of the terms of reference of the appointee to the Authority.
   
   
2. Te Runaka Ki Otautahi O Kai Tahu requested the deletion of the reference to the Charter of Understanding between the Council and Tangata Whenua. The panel have become aware that progress towards this charter has been somewhat slow, and that now both parties feel some other mechanism may be the appropriate means by which the Council meets its obligations to Tangata Whenua under the Resource Management Act. The Panel did not wish to determine itself the process by which consultation should take place, and had the view that the appointment of Tangata Whenua representatives on City Plan panels as full members went some way to meeting the Council's obligations. However it is important that mechanisms for consultation with Tangata Whenua be in place for the period after the City Plan process is finished and for matters outside that process. It might be helpful if a report were presented to the Strategy and Resources Committee on the current state of discussions on a charter of understanding.

Recommendation:

That the terms of reference of the Council's appointee to the Summit Road Protection authority include the requirement to consult with Te Runanga O Rapaki. That a report be prepared for the Strategy and Resources Committee on progress made towards a Charter of Understanding with Tangata Whenua, or some other appropriate means of satisfying the Council's obligations under the Resource Management Act.

 

PART C - REPORT ON DELEGATED DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE COMMITTEE

3.

REQUEST TO EXTEND TIME FOR MAKING SUBMISSION TO THE PROPOSED CITY PLAN

RR 6733

 

Officer responsible	Author
Environmental Services Manager	David Punselie
Corporate Plan Output: City Plan

The Committee received a report seeking the Committee's confirmation of a decision made by the Hearing Panels on a request to extend time for making submissions to the proposed City Plan.

On 26 August 1997 a letter was received from solicitors acting for Windsor Golf Club Incorporated requesting that the Council exercise its discretion under Section 37(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 to allow the club to make submissions to the proposed City Plan at a hearing to be held on 8 September 1997.

The Club is the lessee in perpetuity of land owned by Waitikiri Links Limited. This company has made a submission to the proposed plan seeking to have a 50 metres deep strip of its land along the road frontage of the Windsor Golf Course rezoned from Rural 1 to Living 1. No further submissions in support or opposition were received. The Club had recently become aware of the submission and wanted to oppose it.

Section 37(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 gives the Council a discretion to extend a time period specified in the Act or in regulations within which it or any person must do something. The Council has delegated this discretion to the City Plan Hearings Committee.

Given the short period between the receipt of the request and the hearing date the two Hearings Panels met on 1 September 1997 to consider this matter and decided that time should not be extended. In reaching its decision the Panels had regard to the time that had elapsed since the closing date for submissions and further submissions (30 November 1995 and 28 June 1996) and to the precedent that would be established for others in a similar position. The Company's solicitors have been notified accordingly.

The Committee resolved that the decision of the Hearings Panels not to extend time to allow Windsor Golf Club Incorporated to make a submission to the proposed City Plan be confirmed.

 

4.

SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION OF CITY PLAN HEARINGS: POSSIBLE USE OF COMMISSIONERS

RR 6731

 

Officer responsible	Author
Environmental Services Manager	R C Nixon
Corporate Plan Output: City Plan

The Committee received a report that recommended the employment of commissioners to assist in processing the City Plan hearings workload.

It has become apparent that the number of hearing days required to complete the hearings by the end of June 1998, is such that there is a very real likelihood that panel members will find the time available to them is insufficient. There is the significance of the fact that 1998 is an election year, and the usual demand caused through the annual budget process.

There are also some issues involving the Council, such as its designations, which may be best dealt with by a commissioner in any event.

It was suggested to the Committee that the allocation of subject areas to commissioners for hearings take account of the need for existing panels to hear issues which are related to other areas on which they have already heard submissions, (for example urban growth matters). Notwithstanding this however, there are other subject areas that could quite reasonably be dealt with by a commissioner without effecting the overall integrity of the hearings process, or raising a risk of inconsistent decision making.

In respect to each panel, those areas that are seen as most suitable for delegation to commissioners are the following topic areas;

Panel 1

• Submissions on recreation and open space zones (also including the Lagoons, Agribusiness zone and miscellaneous map changes);
• Submissions relating to the Owles Terrace rezoning in New Brighton;
• Submissions relating to Taylors Mistake;
• Submissions relating to the Special Purpose Ferrymead zone (the overwhelming majority of which relate to the historic park);
• Submissions relating to the Halswell Quarry;
• Submissions relating to Travis Wetland (many of these have now been resolved through the Council purchase of the land, but a number of minor zoning matters still remain).

This would still leave Panel 1 with the larger part of the remaining workload, including the more difficult subject areas requiring hearings. These include natural environment objectives and policies; waterway setbacks and esplanade reserves; filling and excavation rules; coastal matters; Rural Hills and Rural 6 zones; and Conservation zones.

Panel 2

• Roading hierarchy and designations;
• Objectives, policies and rules relating to waste management and land fill matters;
• Rules relating to the Special Purpose Road and Rail zones.

In addition to this, it would also appear desirable that matters relating to the Wigram Airfield Variation be dealt with by a commissioner.

By these means, it should be readily possible to process the remaining City Plan submissions within the time frame set by the Council for the completion of hearings, this being late June. It should be noted at this stage that there is little point in appointing commissioners to hear earlier scheduled matters such as heritage and protected trees for example, because this will involve bringing forward the hearing of subsequent subjects. This would not be within the capacity of staff to produce reports given the time frames available. Commissioners need only be appointed (subject to adequate lead times) according to the dictates of the hearings timetable.

Even these measures, would still only involve about 20% of the remaining hearings material being heard by commissioners. The primary advantage from panel members point of view would be that if time frames are exceeded in earlier hearings it would mean that it would be possible for some degree of "slippage" to occur without the whole hearings programme being thrown into disarray.

The cost of hiring commissioners is clearly going to result in budget provision for the 1997/98 financial year for the City Plan being exceeded. While the use of commissioners will entail some savings in other areas, these will not be enough to offset the additional costs. However, having regard to all the foregoing factors, the Committee considered that the only secure way of ensuring that the Council's deadline for completing the hearings is achieved, is to employ commissioners to assist.

The Committee resolved:

1. That approval be given for the employment of commissioners to hear any one or more of the above topic areas according to the requirements of the City Plan timetable.
   
   
2. That the Environmental Committee be advised that this action could result in cost overruns for the Environmental Services Unit in the 1997/98 financial year.

The meeting concluded at 11.10 am

 

CONSIDERED THIS 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1997

 

MAYOR

Top of Page ~ Council & Councillors Information