This page is not a current Christchurch City Council document. Please read our disclaimer.
25. 6. 97
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE
12 JUNE 1997
A meeting of the Environmental Committee
was held on Thursday 12 June 1997 at 4.00 pm
PRESENT: Councillor Carole Evans (Chairman), The Mayor, Councillors Oscar Alpers, Anna Crighton, Newton Dodge, Lesley Keast, Charles Manning and Barbara Stewart.
IN ATTENDANCE: Councillor David Close (from 5.15 pm to 6.00 pm).
APOLOGY: An apology for absence was received and accepted from Councillor Pat Harrow.
Councillor Alpers arrived at 4.12 pm and was not present for part of clause 7.
Councillor Crighton left at 6.00 pm and was not present for clauses 5, 6 and 13.
The Committee reports that:
PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION
1. REVIEW OF MOBILE SHOP LICENCE CONDITIONS RR 5360
| Officer responsible | Author |
| Environmental Policy and Planning Manager | Terence Moody, Principal Environmental Health Officer |
| Corporate Plan Output: Environmental Health Policy Vol II p7.2.text.12 |
The purpose of this report is to continue the review of the conditions which the Council has placed on mobile shop licences issued under the provisions of Christchurch City Public Places and Signs Bylaw 1992.
The suggested changes in conditions were considered by the Committee at its meeting in March 1997 and were recommended for adoption by the Council. The Council at its meeting on 26 March 1997 referred the report to the City Services Committee and Environmental Committee for re-examination and report back to the Council.
The City Services Committee has now examined the conditions and proposed list of restricted roads previously recommended and with one change has recommended adoption of the conditions and the list of restricted roads. The one change was to remove the prohibition from trading in that stretch of Linwood Avenue from Hargood Street to Humphreys Drive.
Recommendation: That the Council adopt the conditions on the issue of licences for mobile shops, as attached, to apply from 1 July 1997.
2. PROHIBITION OF SKATEBOARDING AND ROLLER BLADING RR 5150
| Officer responsible | Author |
| Environmental Policy and Planning Manager | Terence Moody, Principal Environmental Health Officer, and Willis Heney, Team Leader, Environmental Monitoring |
| Corporate Plan Output: Environmental Health Policy Vol II p 7.2.text.12 |
The purpose of this report is to consider a prohibition on the use of skateboards, and possibly roller skates, on certain roads and in certain public places in the city.
Introduction
There recently seems to have been a resurgence of the practice of persons undertaking skateboarding in the city with a number of complaints having been received. There has also been reported an incident in which a women was hit by a skate-boarder which led to injury (allegedly a large gash in the leg) which required hospital treatment. In addition reported damage to bricks and concrete in Victoria Square has occurred and two windows at the Town Hall have been broken. There have also been concerns expressed about this practice occurring in other areas of the city but it is unknown as to whether injury to persons has occurred or damage to property done.
Present Controls
Currently the Council has provisions in two bylaws which control the practice of skateboarding.
The Christchurch City Public Places and Signs Bylaw 1992 contains the following provision.
3. PLAYING AT GAMES
No person shall play at any game or ride in or upon any toboggan, cart, trolley, skateboard, roller skate or similar device in any road or public place, in such a manner or at such a time as may cause damage to property owned by the Council or may cause annoyance, danger or inconvenience to residents or members of the public in the vicinity.
The Christchurch City Traffic and Parking Bylaw 1991 contains the following provision.
37. SKATEBOARDS PROHIBITED
No skateboards shall be permitted to enter upon any attended off-street parking area unless the written consent of the Council has first been obtained.
Under the latter bylaw the term "Skateboard" means a board fitted with wheels used to support a person and propelled by that person using muscular energy or with the assistance of a declining gradient and which has no mechanical means of braking.
It is clear that under the first bylaw damage to Council property or annoyance, danger, or inconvenience to members of the public are offences under that provision. The effectiveness of these requirements of course depends on how and whether the bylaw provisions can be enforced. If the persons are under 17 years old there are restrictions on prosecution under the Children's and Young Persons Act. There would also be, even for those alleged offenders above that age, possible difficulties in obtaining adequate identification of true name and address, as well as evidence to support the contention that offences had occurred. These, however, can be problems with all bylaws which attempt to control behaviour of people in public places.
The Legal Services Manager has commented on the matter of a possible bylaw to prohibit skateboarding, as well as roller skates or roller blades in specified public places. In his view the bylaw making powers of the Local Government Act do provide the power for the Council to prohibit skateboarding on specific public areas.
Operational Considerations
In the central city area, however, it is estimated that there would be at least 50 complaints per year - mainly relating to Victoria Square and also Victoria Street, City Mall, Cathedral Square, and the Polytechnic area.
The major difficulty in terms of enforcement relates to identifying offenders. Clause 18 of the Christchurch City General Bylaw 1990 requires that any person who, in the opinion of an Inspector is committing or has committed an offence under any provisions of any bylaw shall, if requested by such Inspector, supply forthwith his full name and place of abode and failure to do so shall constitute a separate offence. In spite of the above, if a person refuses to provide their name, or provides a false name and address, there is little that the Inspector can do. To take action regarding refusal to provide a name and address identification of the person on these grounds is also required.
The second problem is that in most cases by the time the complaint is received the alleged offender has moved from the area. This fact is often acknowledged by complainants.
The third problem is that offenders are often persons who display little or no respect for authority as represented by a Council officer. A better response may be obtained by a uniformed authority figure such as the Police or a uniformed Council Officer such as a Parking Warden.
In regard to this latter point The District Commander of the New Zealand Police was written to asking if the Police would be prepared to assist directly in enforcing a bylaw which would prohibit skateboarding in certain defined areas of the city. It is understood that such direct assistance is provided in Wellington city where such a bylaw prohibition has been introduced. Superintendent Warwick Nicholl has advised that the Police would assist in enforcing by-laws with the proviso that their response would always be prioritised to more serious incidents. Senior Sergeant Fenton Wood, officer in charge of the Beat Section operating out of Cathedral Square, in a report attached to the Superintendent's letter, makes the point that:
The group of youths participating in skateboarding are generally co-operative and easily approached. They don't appear to fight, steal, or purposely intimidate tourists or public. Many have considerable skills at skateboarding and spend hours practising their jumps and manoeuvres.
I have no problem with the proposed by-law legislation. The area of the Parkroyal amphitheatre particularly, would be better used by pedestrians and tourists.
Discussion
The bylaw provision which has been adopted by Wellington City Council is as follows:
17.17 SKATEBOARDING
17.17.1 No person shall ride a skateboard, roller skates or roller blades on a public place recklessly or in a manner which may intimidate, be dangerous or injurious or cause a nuisance to passersby.
17.17.2 The Council may by resolution from time to time prohibit the riding of skateboards, roller skates or roller blades on specified public places. Signs shall be placed to indicate the areas where the prohibition is in force.
17.17.3 No person shall ride a skateboard, roller skates or roller blades on a public place where a prohibition is in force under clause 17.17.2.
Information from Wellington city enforcement staff is that the Police will in fact act on complaints, subject to their availability, mainly in the area of Cuba Mall where the problem is most apparent. The Police have officers based nearby. They will, however, only act on complaints. This has not completely solved the problem to this time.
This Council is, through the Parks Unit, developing a skate facility at the Washington Reserve in the Moorhouse Avenue area. This has been designed in conjunction with a small representative group of skaters and will, when completed, provide facilities close to the central city for these activities. The Parks Unit considers this development will take some of the pressure off other inner city locations such as Victoria Square.
Conclusions
There are no doubt a number of complaints received about, in particular, skateboarding occurring in the central part of Christchurch city and in a number of suburban areas where there are likely to be high pedestrian movements. The actual number of these is unknown. There are some cases where it is apparent, if the facts are correct, where breaches of the current bylaw provision have occurred. The problem appears to be not so much the fact that offences have occurred but the inability of the Council to adequately determine the offenders in order that legal action can be taken.
This latter point would also occur if a provision existed to enable the Council to prohibit skateboarding in certain areas of the city. It would however, be a much clearer offence to determine than an offence such as cause annoyance, danger or inconvenience to residents or members of the public in the vicinity which is contained in the current city bylaw.
It is probable that the Council could introduce a bylaw provision, similar to that adopted by Wellington City Council, to enable it to prohibit skateboarding, roller skating, and the use of in-line skates or roller blades, in certain areas of the city. The matter of enforcement of such a bylaw provision will need to be considered if it is to be other than a public relations exercise. As noted above any bylaws that purport to control behaviour can be difficult to enforce and the view is held, by the Council's enforcement staff, that staff in uniforms are needed for better results. If areas were specified as prohibited there may be a need to invest some time and presence at the initial period to ensure all the users are aware of the prohibition. Signage would need to be provided and maintained, as signs on unpopular controls tend to disappear over time.
In regard to the central city area the point that a purpose built facility is proposed to be provided by the Council, could provide amelioration of the loss of areas, such as Victoria Square, which are currently used by skateboarders. Limiting the number of areas in which the prohibition would apply would enable some reasonableness in regard to this activity and some ease of enforcement, and perhaps some more ready acceptance of the prohibition by the majority of persons undertaking this activity. Once the provision in a bylaw has been adopted there will be a need to specify the areas to which the prohibition will apply. It is suggested that this should await the completion of the skateboard areas currently being developed in the city to enable more acceptance of the prohibition on use of current areas.
Recommendation: That provision be made in the appropriate bylaw(s) for the Council to resolve to prohibit the practice of skateboarding in specified public places and roadways in the city.
3. CITY OF CHRISTCHURCH ENVIRONMENTAL AWARDS RR 5039
| Officer responsible | Author |
| Environmental Policy and Planning Manager | J G Dryden |
| Corporate Plan Output: Environmental Promotion |
The purpose of this report is to further develop a possible system of Civic Awards recognising outstanding contributions to improving the environment of the city.
Background
At its meeting in September 1996 the Council approved an annual environment award to be established subject to the criteria for the awards being extended to include energy conservation measures. A sub-committee of the Environmental Committee was set up to pursue the matter further.
It is proposed that the Awards would recognise outstanding contribution to the city's built and natural environment. For the built environments, projects could include:
Contribution relating to natural environment could include:
The Proposed Award System
(a) The purpose of the Award is to recognise outstanding contributions to the built and natural environment of the city.
(b) In considering policies and projects for the Award, the Council will take into account:
(c) The Award shall be open to all residents, groups and business operating within Christchurch City.
(d) The Award shall be known as "The City of Christchurch Environmental Award".
(e) No more than two awards shall be made in any one year.
(f) Awards shall be made by the Council on the recommendation of the Environment Committee which would be advised by a panel consisting of the Chairman, three other members of the Committee, the Environmental Policy and Planning Manager and two external advisers with special interest in the built and natural environments.
(g) Each award will take the form of a certificate, a small grant of money and, where appropriate, a plaque to be placed on the site of the project.
Other Matters
Timing for the Awards would be once a year in the springtime, and take the form of a Mayoral reception at the Civic Offices. Appropriate publicity of availability of the Awards would be local newspapers and City Scene.
Conclusion
Recognition of outstanding contributions by individuals, organisations and businesses to the built and natural environment of the city is seen as a very useful way of promoting achievement of the city's environmental policies. The institution of "City of Christchurch Environmental Awards" is seen as a practical and cost effective way of providing such recognition.
Recommendation: That the Council approve a "City of Christchurch Environmental Awards" system as outlined in the report.
4. WATER PRODUCTION TRENDS AND TARGETS RR 5436
| Officer responsible | Author |
| Water Services Manager | Eric Van Toor |
| Corporate Plan Output: Supply of Water |
The purpose of this report is to review trends in water demand in Christchurch since amalgamation and to advise on the request to set and publicise demand targets, as proposed by the Environmental Committee at its meeting of 9 October 1996.
INTRODUCTION
As part of the consideration of water charges, the Council resolved in October 1996 not to alter the existing water charging structure but to continue to implement a variety of water saving strategies. One of the strategies required "... that the Water Services Manager recommend appropriate consumption targets for approval by the Environmental Committee and publicise the targets each month as an incentive for conservation".
In considering the targets, it is necessary to review the trends that are already occurring in Christchurch's water demands. There has been a general trend towards declining per capita water demand over the past five years due to a number of factors. This report considers the relative contribution of these factors, followed by a discussion on setting demand reduction targets.
TRENDS IN DEMAND
Demand is naturally dependent on long and short term climatic factors that tend to dominate any comparison with demand for the same month in previous years, particularly for summer months. For example, demand for the month of February for the central zone can average anywhere from 500 to over 700 litres per head per day, due to climatic conditions alone.
It is therefore important to somehow take account of climatic factors when looking for underlying trends. The Water Services Unit does this with a computer model that calculates the expected water production given the historical relationships between the pumped volume and relevant parameters such as mean daily maximum temperature, evaporation and rainfall. A sustained difference between the calculated demand and the actual demand indicates a trend that is due to factors other than climate. The city commissioned an Australia firm, Montgomery Watson Limited to set up the model in 1994, similar to models they had previously set up for Sydney and other large water authorities in Australia.
Graphs of the water production patterns for Christchurch are shown in Attachments 1 and 2 to this report. Attachment 1 is for the Central Zone corresponding to the area of the former Christchurch City before amalgamation. Attachment 2 is for the remaining area of the distribution, which shows a less accurate correlation due to the method of collecting data. The trend lines for these graphs indicate real reductions in demand after corrections have been made for weather variations from year to year.
The models indicate a real reduction in pumped volumes of about 13% over the whole city. It is also possible to tell from the model that the climatic conditions that affect water demand have been relatively uniform for the last few years, resulting in substantial lower water demands than in the five years before 1990.
Another way of considering trends is to look at the base winter demands, which are relatively unaffected by climatic variations. Calculations using winter flows confirm the results indicated by the model, that the reductions are in the order of 13% and most of the reduced abstraction is in the base demand rather than the summer irrigation component.
While there appears to be little change in the total irrigation component, changes have been observed in summer pumping patterns. The peaks are now not as high and appear later in the day. The reasons are likely to be a combination of encouragement to water in cooler times of the day and the increasing popularity of domestic irrigation systems, which water at a lower rate over longer periods.
The 13% per capita reduction is worth approximately $200,000 annually to the city in reduced electricity costs alone. When balanced against a population growth of 7% the city can expect to pump about three million cubic metres per year less than it did five years ago, excluding climatic effects.
REASONS FOR REDUCED ABSTRACTION
There are a number of factors occurring simultaneously that contribute to the reduction. It is not possible to quantify these exactly, but indicative figures have been calculated to give some idea of the relative contributions to the total reduction. These are summarised in figure 1 below.
Figure 1: Factors that Affect Per Capita Abstraction
Reduction in Commercial Demand
A reduction in commercial demand is believed to have contributed approximately a third of the total. The reduced demand on the municipal supply due to one major freezing works alone that has opted to use its own wells accounts for 1% of the total city abstraction. Approximately 50 unmetered commercial high use connections have been discovered which has reduced demand because the water is now being charged for, with one example being a packaging company reducing its annual demand by 100,000 cubic metres during the year after meter installation. Also, changes in the pricing structure have resulted in double the number of commercial users being charged for water since 1992.
Leak Detection
Approximately 600 substantial leaks on private property have been found during (and as a direct result of) the meter installation programme, both as result of reports from consumers who check their meters after installation and by meter readers at the time of first reading. The total amount of water saved through the repair of these leaks is estimated at about 1.5 million cubic metres annually.
Urban Consolidation
Urban consolidation is also a significant factor. There has been an approximate 7% increase in the number of dwellings within the existing built-up areas in Christchurch between the 1991 and 1996 censuses, resulting in a reduced area requiring irrigation of about 150 ha and a demand reduction of about 1.5 million cubic metres per year. Unlike the other contributing factors mentioned above, this factor will affect the summer demand rather than the winter baseload.
Public Behaviour
Public attitudes are assumed to make up the remaining reduction in expected demand. This is the most difficult factor to calculate. The conclusion that it is not large is consistent with our belief that much of a household's discretionary water use occurs in summer outside the home. If public attitudes were a much greater factor, reductions should be more apparent in summer rather than most of the reduction occurring in the base load.
PROJECTION OF TRENDS
It is likely that the current trend of reducing per capita demand will continue although it will probably slow. Commercial demand is unlikely to reduce significantly further while the present pricing structure continues.
All meters in the city have now been read at least once so we expect considerably fewer long term leaks in the future. Urban consolidation will slow if urban growth tapers off as predicted. Public attitudes are likely to change significantly only if consumers are given a clear signal from either the Regional or City Councils.
THE NEED FOR FURTHER REDUCTIONS
The Regional Council has made significant progress over recent months in respect to resource consents for Christchurch-West Melton aquifer system. These will be reported on in detail at the July meeting of the Environmental Committee prior to a workshop being run by the Regional Council for interested parties. However it is unlikely that any specific limits or trigger levels will apply to any of the city's wells at this stage, but that standard review clauses will be in place while monitoring and investigations continue. While any demand reduction will ease stress on the resource particularly in a sustained dry period, the Regional Council is unlikely to require the city to make specific reductions in abstraction within the next few years.
There are dangers in releasing targets in the absence of such guidelines by the Regional Council. They may weaken the effect of demand reductions when they are actually required. Secondly, external factors are responsible for most of the current trend and a failure to achieve a target will not necessarily bear much relationship to consumer effort, resulting in confusion.
The alternative is to publicise the actual demand on a monthly basis relative to previous demand for that month of the year, making due allowance for climatic conditions as indicated by the model. This information could be made available publicly in the second week of each month for the previous month. Some recalibration and further work on the model is advisable before the information is released publicly to reflect changes since the model was set up, but a system could be put in place before the coming summer. The information would help keep consumers aware of the issues and could easily be modified to include targets if required at a later date.
CONCLUSION
Per capita demand in Christchurch has decreased in the order of 13% over the past five years due to a number of factors. While the trend may well continue, publicly notified targets are not recommended at this stage. Monitoring however should continue and could be produced as public information to support other Council initiatives to use water efficiently.
Recommendation: 1. That trends in water demand be monitored and made public monthly as soon as possible, following collection.
2. That a media release be prepared to the effect of saying well done Christchurch.
5. FORTIFIED SITES IN BUSINESS ZONES RR 5408
| Officer responsible | Author |
| Environmental Services Manager |
Fiona Sands, Planner |
| Corporate Plan Output: City Plan |
1. INTRODUCTION
This report follows concern expressed at the May 1997 Council meeting with regard to the proposed status of fortified sites within the Business 3,4,5 and 6 Zones of the proposed Christchurch City Plan. At this meeting it was requested that a report to the June Environmental Committee be prepared by Council staff to assess the merits of the proposed discretionary activity status versus non-complying activity status.
The proposed standard on fortified sites is an effects based standard. Although the promulgation of this variation was a direct result of community concern regarding fortifications around gang headquarters, the resulting standard included as part of the proposed Variation, is not restricted to this activity and may affect other activities. The extent of which will become apparent through the submissions process. It is important that the Committee keeps this distinction in mind when the following report is being considered.
2. BUSINESS 3, 4, 5 AND 6 ZONES
In general, the Business 3, 4, 5 and 6 zones are located around existing areas of industrial development. These areas are found within the City, in both suburban, and rural areas.
In these zones the Plan anticipates that there will be higher levels of environmental effects than in other zones. In particular, it is expected that there will be higher levels of vehicle generation, particularly heavy vehicles, increased levels of storage, decreased levels of open space, and landscape plantings, increased noise levels, and bulkier buildings. Because of the high levels of outdoor storage associated
with industrial activities, it is not unusual to find highly secure premises within these zones. Security may include high fences, surveillance systems, and monitoring of premises by security firms etc. This level of effect is distinctive from other environments in the City, eg, living environments where buildings at low densities with extensive areas of open space and landscape plantings are expected.
In a general sense it is therefore expected that the anticipated level of amenities in industrial zones is markedly different from that of other zones in the City Plan
Given the previous reasons it was concluded that it would not be appropriate to prohibit fortified sites within the Business 3,4,5 and 6 zones (except where such sites adjoin or are across the road from any of the previously identified zones), and that the resource consent process provides an opportunity for any adverse effects associated with fortified sites in these zones to be avoided, remedied, or mitigated.
3. DISCRETIONARY VS NON-COMPLYING
Concern has been expressed by a number of Councillors over the proposed status of fortified sites within the Business 3,4,5, and 6 zones.
The Variation as presented to the May Council meeting suggested that the proposed fortified site standard be listed as a community standard. If any activity breached this standard only a discretionary resource consent application would be required to be applied for. It is noted that for both a discretionary activity and a non-complying activity, that the consent authority (ie the City Council) has the ability to grant or refuse consent, or grant consent subject to conditions.
Under the Act, an application for a resource consent is required to be assessed according to the requirements of Section 104 and 105 of the Act. Section 104(I) of the Act sets out the matters to be considered subject to Part II of the Act (Purpose and Principles). These matters are as follows:
(a) Any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity; and
(b) Any relevant regulations; and
(c) Any relevant national policy statement, New Zealand coastal policy statement, regional policy statement, and proposed regional policy statement; and
(d) Any relevant objectives, policies, rules, or other provisions of a plan or proposed plan; and
(e) Any relevant district plan or proposed district plan, where the application is made in accordance with a regional plan; and
(f) Any relevant regional plan or proposed regional plan, where the application is made in accordance with a district plan; and
(g) Any relevant water conservation order or draft water conservation order; and
(h) Any relevant designations or heritage orders or relevant requirements for designations or heritage orders; and
(i) Any other matters the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application.
For the Committee's information, in Section 104 there is no distinction between the level of consent ie, whether it is controlled, discretionary, or non-complying. The essential difference between the levels of resource consent is contained within Section 105.
Section 105 sets out the matters to be considered when an application is being decided upon.
Section 105(1)(b) states that for an application for a discretionary activity, a consent authority may grant or refuse the consent (and if granted) may impose conditions under Section 108.
Section 105(2)(b) states that a consent authority shall not grant a resource consent for a non-complying activity unless it is satisfied that:
(i) The adverse effects on the environment will be minor; or
(ii) Granting the consent will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of the Plan or the Proposed Plan.
The application of Section 105(2)(b) has been the subject of a number of appeals. For instance in Batchelor vs Tauranga District Council, the then Planning Tribunal commented in its decision on Section 105 (2)(b):
"A consent authority can only consider an application for a non-complying activity if one of the alternative conditions in Section 105(2)(b) is fulfilled. The conditions are not tests, the passing of which would justify the grant of consent, but are conditions, the fulfilling of which enables the consent authority to consider the proposal on its merits, having regard to the matter referred to in Section 104."
Hence, while the Act does differentiate between a non-complying activity and a discretionary activity it should not be assumed that because there is a difference that discretionary activities are difficult to decline. In this regard I refer the Committee to the attached legal opinion.
In assessing the proposed status of fortified sites within the Business 3,4,5 and 6 zones, weight was also given to the way in which activities have been categorised in the City Plan. In this regard I refer the Committee to the following description of the categories of activities contained within the Proposed Plan:
2.2 Non-Complying Activities
Non-complying activities are those which do not comply with any one or more of the critical standards specified in the Plan, or are specifically identified. Critical standards have been set on the basis that non compliance with any one or more of them, may have significant actual or potential adverse effects over a wider area, whether such effects are either specific to that proposal, or cumulative in nature.
If an activity is non complying any application is subject to:
(a) Part II and Sections 104 and 105 of the Resource Management Act; and
(b) any relevant objectives and policies of the City Plan as set out in the Statement of Objectives and Policies.
2.3 Discretionary Activities
These are activities which comply with all of the critical standards but do not comply with any one or more of the community standards or development standards specified in the Plan; or which are specified as discretionary activities. Community standards have been set on the general basis that non compliance with any one or more of them may have moderate adverse effects of a "neighbourhood scale" or significant impact on adjacent land, whether such effects are specific to that proposal, or cumulative in nature. Any application is made on the basis that the whole activity is discretionary.
Development standards on the other hand, have been set on the basis that non-compliance with any one or more of these standards may have significant effects on adjacent land. Any application is made on the basis that the activity is discretionary but that the exercise of the Council's discretion is confined to the aspect covered by the standard. For example, if a building did not comply with a setback requirement, the Council can exercise its discretion only in respect to the setback.
If an activity is discretionary as a whole or in respect to a particular matter, any application is subject to:
(a) Part II and Sections 104 and 105 of the Act;
(b) any relevant objectives and policies of the City Plan as set out in the Statement of Objectives and Policies; and
(c) Assessment matters which the Council will have regard to in considering whether or not to grant consent, or impose conditions and which are contained in the relevant sections of the Statement of Rules.
The rules specify also those circumstances where discretionary or controlled activities do not require the written consent of other parties for notification.
The essential difference is contained within the italicised sections.
In the Business 3,4,5 and 6 zones it is felt that fortified sites would have a "neighbourhood effect" rather than an effect over a wider area. The reason being that the anticipated level of amenity in these zones is significantly different than other zones.
In addition as stated in Section 2 of this report it could be anticipated that in areas where high levels of outdoor storage is expected that people would wish to establish highly secure premises. In a general sense such locations may also be appropriate for other highly secure activities such as prisons and detention centres.
3. CONCLUSION
The proposed variation acknowledges that fortified sites have environmental effects irrespective of their location, but that the degree of effect varies. The proposed standard is an effects based standard. It would therefore be inappropriate and inconsistent with the purpose and the principles of the Act to prohibit fortified sites in every planning zone. It therefore remains to be considered what level of consent is appropriate considering the anticipated level of environmental effects in these zones. It has already been stated in this report that high levels of outdoor storage are associated with these zones and it is not unusual to find highly secure premises within these zones. Because of this reason and other reasons outlined in this report it is envisaged that fortified sites within the Business 3, 4, 5 and 6 zones would have localised effects, and as such should be considered as discretionary activities rather than non-complying activities. Bearing this in mind it could be considered to be unreasonable to promulgate a variation that proposed to require a resource consent for a non-complying activity for fortified sites in the Business 3, 4, 5 and 6 zones.
The proposed discretionary activity status acknowledges that fortified sites have the potential to adversely effect the environment and such effects are required to be considered through the resource consent process. It should not be presumed that the proposed discretionary activity status will mean that all applications for fortified sites will be approved as each application is required to be treated on its merits having regard to sections 104 and 105 and the proposed assessment matters.
In conclusion, it is considered at this point in time that the proposed discretionary activity status for fortified sites in the Business 3, 4, 5 and 6 zones should remain having regard to the relevant objectives and policies and the environmental results anticipated for the Business 3, 4, 5 and 6 zones. The Committee is reminded that the submissions process is a means by which this issue can be revisited having regard to the submissions received and any evidence presented to the contrary.
Recommendation: That the discretionary activity status for fortified sites in the Business 3, 4 5, and 6 zones remain.
6. URBAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY RR 4515
JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE
| Officer responsible |
Author |
| Environmental Policy and Planning Manager |
Warren Brixton |
| Corporate Plan Output: City Planning and Development |
The purpose of this report is to advise that the Council's representatives to the joint Standing Committee (Councillors Oscar Alpers, David Close and Carole Evans) met as a sub-committee on 9 June 1997, to consider matters pertaining to the forthcoming joint authority meeting.
Specifically the sub-committee met to consider:
Size of Joint Committee Representation
A revised representation for reasons of practicality and workability had in February 1997 been suggested as a change to the committee's constitution to provide for:
(a) Three members appointed by the Christchurch City Council.
(b) Two members appointed by the Canterbury Regional Council.
(c) One member appointed by each of the Banks Peninsula, Waimakariri, Selwyn and Hurunui District Councils.
The revised recommendation had been referred to each of the respective Councils for consideration.
General acceptance of the revised membership had been obtained except for that of the Canterbury Regional Council which was seeking a membership of three members.
As was the case before it was suggested that the City Council retain the chairmanship of the joint Committee, with Councillor Oscar Alpers to be nominated for this position.
Frequency of Meetings and Relationship to City Plan
It was noted that the Council in considering this matter earlier had resolved:
1. That the joint Committee meet no more than six monthly and restrict its deliberations to receiving and discussing technical options.
2. That the public consultation on longer term urban growth options not begin until the City Plan hearings process has been completed.
The reasons related to this were discussed and it was agreed that this year's work of the Committee be confined to technical options, although this view was not necessarily held by all the other local authorities.
Recommendation: That the constitution of the joint Standing Committee be amended to provided for:
(a) Three members appointed by the Christchurch City Council.
(b) Three members appointed by the Canterbury Regional Council.
(c) One member appointed by each of the Banks Peninsula, Waimakariri, Selwyn and Hurunui District Councils.
PART B - REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
7. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
Dr J Morgan Williams, Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, together with Mr Phil Hughes of the Commissioner's Office were present to discuss their report "The Management of Suburban Amenity Values".
Dr Williams backgrounded the situation leading to the preparation of the report, before identifying the positive initiatives taken by the Christchurch City Council through its District Plan mechanisms.
He identified various issues for local authority consideration including:
He concluded by giving Christchurch his support for its growth strategy policy, as this contained a very good vision of where Christchurch would be in 50 years time, but he noted the pressures being applied on the green belt sustainability.
8. THE MANAGEMENT OF SUBURBAN AMENITY VALUES - A REPORT BY THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT RR 5283
This report by Ken Gimblett, Senior Planner, was firstly to inform the Committee of the findings of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment's study and secondly, to invite the Committee to consider and agree a response on behalf of the Council, to be published as part of the final study.
The Committee decided:
1. That the report form the basis of a response to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, for publication as part of the study.
2. That a report with urban amenity team and design guidelines be prepared for the Committee's consideration.
3. That the issues identified in the report be considered at the Annual Plan process time.
9. PROPOSED AIR QUALITY PLAN FOR CHRISTCHURCH RR 5411
A report by the Principal Environmental Health Officer backgrounded the situation and issues that had arisen in the preparation of the consultative draft air chapter of the Canterbury Regional Council's Natural Resources Regional Plan. This is proposed to be completed by the end of June 1997.
The Committee decided that the Committee go through the processes the Parliamentary Commissioner of the Environment has advised and approach him with its concerns about Christchurch's air pollution problem, with the view that Christchurch may be a special pilot area.
10. GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL, PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES RR 5399
The Committee received a report from the Environmental Policy and Planning Manager providing information on the following matters:
(a) Coastal Investigations.
(b) Business and Employment Changes.
(c) Public Passenger Transport Strategy.
(d) Avon Theatre.
(e) Resource Management Conference.
1 The Committee decided that Councillor Anna Crighton attend the Resource Management Conference as the Environmental Committee's appointee and Councillor Newton Dodge also attend representing the City Plan Hearing Panels.
PART C - REPORT ON DELEGATED DECISIONS
TAKEN BY THE COMMITTEE
11. SUPPLEMENTARY ITEMS
The Chairman sought the approval of the Committee to introduce a supplementary report on the following topic:
Urban Development Strategy Joint Standing Committee
The reasons why the item was not on the agenda and why the matter could not wait for the next meeting, as detailed in the report, were explained to the Committee.
The Committee resolved that the report be received and considered at the present meeting.
12. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
The Committee resolved that the draft resolution to exclude the public set out on page 30 of the agenda be adopted.
CONSIDERED THIS 25TH DAY OF JUNE 1997
MAYOR