This page is not a current Christchurch City Council document. Please read our disclaimer.
28. 5. 97
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE
15 MAY 1997
A meeting of the Environmental Committee
was held on Thursday 15 May 1997 at 4.00 pm
PRESENT: Councillor Carole Evans (Chairman)
The Mayor,
Councillors Oscar Alpers, Anna Crighton,
Newton Dodge, Pat Harrow, Lesley Keast
and Barbara Stewart.
APOLOGIES: Apologies were received and accepted from Councillor Charles Manning.
Councillor Alpers arrived at 4.15 pm and was not present for clause 5.
Councillor Crighton left at 5.30 pm and was not present for clauses 10 and 11.
The Committee reports that:
PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION
1. NEW DOG CONTROL BYLAW RR 5269
| Officer responsible |
Author |
| Environmental Policy and Planning Manager |
Terence Moody Principal Environmental Health
Officer |
| Corporate Plan Output: Environmental Health Policy
Vol II P.7.2.text.12 |
The purpose of this report is to commence the process of adopting a new Dog Control Bylaw in accordance with the provisions of the Dog Control Act 1996 and the adopted policy of the Council under that Act.
The Council at its meeting on the 23 April 1997 formally adopted a dog control policy under section 10 of the Dog Control Act 1996 including the matters which it is required to include in a bylaw made under the Act.
A bylaw has now been prepared by David Rolls which reflects the above policies, and will replace the current Christchurch City Dog Control Bylaw 1992.
The following comments are made on the bylaw as prepared.
i) Legal advice is that the term "road" in section 315 of the Local Government Act 1974 does not include "Private ways" and therefore there is no power to require dogs on private ways to be held on a leash. Section 20 (1) (b) of the Act only refers to making such a requirement in a public place.
ii) Rather than specifying in the bylaw which public places dogs are prohibited, or prohibited unless they are held on a leash, the bylaw provides that this may be done by the Council by resolution. This keeps the bylaw a short and concise document. It also avoids the necessity of having to alter the bylaw whenever it is desired to alter the prohibitions.
The bylaw provides that it shall come into force on the 1 July 1997.
Recommendation: That the Council commence the Special Order procedure for the adoption of the Christchurch City Dog Control Bylaw 1997, such Bylaw to be confirmed at a Special Council meeting on 23 June 1997.
2. VARIATIONS FOR MINOR AMENDMENTS AND CORRECTIONS
TO THE PROPOSED CHRISTCHURCH CITY DISTRICT PLAN RR 5157
| Officer responsible |
Author |
| Environmental Services Manager |
Irene Clarke |
| Corporate Plan Output: City Plan |
The purpose of this report is to propose three variations to the Christchurch City Proposed District Plan covering minor amendments in the plan and the addition of a number of Protected Trees.
BACKGROUND
A report was presented to the previous meeting of the Environmental Committee proposing three variations to the Christchurch City Proposed District Plan. These three variations, numbered variations 3, 4 and 5 were to correct minor inconsistencies and errors in the Plan.
These three variations have not yet proceeded as they were to be notified along with a separate variation which has been delayed. The three variations have therefore been fine tuned and it is now proposed that they proceed in the attached form. Please note that the variation numbers have also altered.
THE THREE VARIATIONS
Variation 4 has eight amendments to zone boundaries in the planning maps. These amendments are minor and correct inconsistencies between the intended zoning of particular sites and what was shown on the notified planning maps.
Variation 5 has amendments to Part 10 - Heritage and Amenities. The amendments include minor corrections to the Appendices which list "Protected Buildings, Places and Objects" and "Heritage/Notable Trees", for example corrections to legal descriptions, and removal of listings which no longer exist. In addition, a number of trees are to be added to the list of Notable Trees as part of this variation. These trees have been assessed by the Parks Unit and found to be worthy of protection in terms of the system used in the City Plan. This involves some 133 properties and 388 trees.
Variation 6 has amendments to Part 9.3 - Scheduled Activities. The amendments are to the Lists of Scheduled Activities and the maps which contain some minor inconsistencies.
Recommendation: That pursuant to Clause 5 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Council initiate Variation Number 4, Variation Number 5 and Variation Number 6 to the Christchurch City Proposed District Plan.
3. PLAN CHANGE 11, RESORT AND RECREATION ZONE,
LAGOONS RR 5043
| Officer responsible |
Author |
| Environmental Services Manager |
A Hansbury, Planning Assistant |
| Corporate Plan Output: City Plan Changes Page + |
The purpose of this report is to request the Committee's approval to make Plan Change 11 to the Waimairi and Eyre Sections of the Christchurch Transitional District Plan operative from 9 June 1997.
Plan Change 11 as amended by Variation 1 is a privately requested change which creates the Resort and Recreation Zone (Lagoons), a special zone applying to approximately 160ha of land north of Johns Road, west of the
"Groynes Reserve". The zone provides for the development of an international golf course resort with tourist accommodation and associated facilities, and some limited residential accommodation. Development within the zone will be in accordance with an "Outline Development Plan". The change was heard by the hearings panel and the decision approving the Change with amendments was confirmed by the Council. Two appeals against the Council decision were lodged by New Zealand Plan International Ltd and Christchurch International Airport Ltd. The Environment Court has allowed the appeal, approving the change with amendments. The Plan Change can now be made operative (see attached).
Recommendation: That pursuant to Clause 20 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991, Plan Change 11 be made operative on 9 June 1997.
4. DELEGATIONS FOR COMMISSIONERS RR 5224
| Officer responsible |
Author |
| Environmental Services Manager |
Melinda Smith |
| Corporate Plan Output: Resource Consents |
The purpose of this report is to amend the delegations to enable commissioners to be appointed to make decisions on a range of additional matters that are currently only delegated to the Resource Management Hearings Panel. It is only proposed to extend this range of matters to enable commissioners to deal with further applications which relate to or arise from a decision previously made by a hearings commissioner or commissioners appointed by the Resource Management Hearings Panel or the Resource Management Officer Committee.
The current list of delegations from Council provide for the Resource Management Hearings Panel to delegate matters to a commissioner or commissioners as follows:
Pursuant to Section 34(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991, the power to appoint any hearings commissioner or commissioners, where in the opinion of the hearings panel, it is desirable that a commissioner or commissioners be appointed for a specified District Plan hearing, change to a plan, notified application, non-notified application, requirement or heritage order.
The Resource Management Officer Committee also has the ability to appoint a commissioner or commissioners to decide whether an application should be notified or non-notified under Section 94, and to hear any subsequent non-notified application for a resource consent.
At present only the matters listed in the above delegations may be put before a Commissioner for consideration. However, in the list of delegations "To any commissioner or commissioners appointed by a hearings panel" the following is noted within the range of decisions that can be made:
Any other delegation given by the Council to the Resource Management Hearings Panel, City Plan Committee, or to the Resource Management Officer Committee.
It would appear that when the delegations were set up it was envisaged that commissioners could at times be required to make a wide range of decisions. However, the ability to officially appoint commissioners for a wide range of decision making tasks was not included in the delegations.
Clearly there will be situations where a Commissioner will need to be appointed to make decisions for the Resource Management Hearings Panel other than those listed in the above existing delegations. An example would be where an application was considered by a Commissioner because the Council had a financial interest in the approval of the application. In this instance it would be equally appropriate for a Commissioner to make subsequent decisions with regard to that application, such as hearing an objection on the conditions of consent under section 357 of the Act.
Where a Commissioner or Commissioners have previously made the decision on an application for resource consent, it may be appropriate for a Commissioner or Commissioners to be appointed to make decisions on further applications which relate to or arise from that decision. This could be the case with the following types of applications which can currently only be considered by the Resource Management Hearings Panel.
The amended delegation set out below would enable the Resource Management Hearings Panel to appoint a commissioner or commissioners to make the decision on any of the matters listed above.
Recommendation: That the delegation to the Resource Management Hearings Panel relating to the appointment of Commissioners be amended as follows (the additional words are printed in italics):
"Pursuant to Section 34(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991, the power to appoint any hearings commissioner or commissioners, where in the opinion of the hearings panel, it is desirable that a commissioner or commissioners be appointed for a specified District Plan hearing, change to a plan, notified application, non-notified application, requirement or heritage order and/or to exercise any other function, power or duty delegated to the Resource Management Hearings Panel, where that relates to or arises from a decision previously made by a hearings commissioner or commissioners appointed by the Resource Management Hearings Panel or the Resource Management Officer Committee.
5. RESERVE CONTRIBUTIONS RR 5156
| Officer responsible |
Author |
| Environmental Services Manager |
V Vabulis Team Leader Subdivisions |
| Corporate Plan Output: Reserve Contributions |
The purpose of this report is to consider a request for a reduction in the development levy (reserve contribution) for an apartment development on the corner of Worcester Street and Fitzgerald Avenue.
The proposal is to construct 36 one bedroom/studio apartments and the contribution payable based on Council's valuation and the current basis of assessment, calculates to $76,800.00.
Council's Policy Register allows for consideration to be given for reduction to reserve contributions on an individual basis in situations where, inter alia ... "when new developments generates less than usual demand for new recreational facilities".
The developer is seeking a reduction of the contribution to what the equivalent figure would be for a subdivision application into Unit Titles which would be $45,000.00.
Note: The development levy (reserve contribution) is paid on the building process of the development and a subdivision reserve contribution is paid on the subdivision process. The formulae to calculate each contribution is different and the developer pays the higher of the two. The development levy is based on the number of units proposed (minus two) times the m2 land value in the locality times 20m2.
The developer has provided the following submission in his request for the reduction.
1. The fact that the development is to be one bedroom or studio units and accordingly the expectancy of the density of people would not be the same as if the development was to be of two or three bedroom units.
2. The design of the units provides for underground garages thus leaving a generous central courtyard for communal use for the residents.
3. The development will create new modestly priced housing which the architect suggests can be described as "social housing".
4. The Proposed City Plan (which is not yet operative for financial contributions) proposes a sliding scale for reserve contributions based on unit size, (eg the greater the size of the unit the greater the contribution value; a unit of 115m2 or greater will pay a contribution rate of 100m2 while a unit of 55m2 will pay a rate of 25m2).
Other considerations - elsewhere in this Agenda Paper is a report from Environmental Policy and Planning staff on Local Open Space Policy. That report identifies areas of the City where there are deficiencies of local parks. The report further indicates priority areas for acquisition of land for such parks. One of these areas is identified as the Eastern Inner City area and in which location this development is to occur.
In discussing the issues with the Parks Unit Management Planning Officer, he is of the opinion that maximum contributions should be sought from developers in providing the necessary funds for the acquisition of land for local parks in the identified areas.
CONCLUSION
A bench mark figure of a contribution of 100m2 from each vacant allotment capable of containing a household of three people or more, has been established by Council to ensure that local parks continue to be provided at desirable levels for future and existing community access and use. Therefore at a contribution rate of 20m2 for a unit capable of housing one person (possibly two) is a fair assessment for this development given Councils bench mark of future needs.
The Local Open Space Policy report highlights the need for Council to acquire a local park in the locality and in fact has placed it in priority area one for acquisition.
Recommendation: That the development of 36 one bedroom/studio units be required to pay the amount of development levy (reserve contribution) based on a contribution rate of cash value of 20m2 per unit after the first two units.
PART B - REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
6. LOCAL OPEN SPACE POLICY RR 5058
The Committee received a report from Sarah Duffell,
Assistant Planner detailing a draft policy for the acquisition of
the local parks. The report was based on the
work carried out over the past several years and it identified
local open space deficiencies across the city.
The Committee decided that the local parks acquisition draft policy be supported as presented and be referred to the Parks & Recreation Committee for its consideration.
7. UPDATE ON HERITAGE BUILDINGS RR 5147
The Committee received a report from the Assistant Planner (Heritage) providing current information relating to listed heritage buildings which are under threat of demolition or alteration or whose futures are uncertain.
The information was received.
Mr Derek Anderson, Chairman, Christchurch Heritage Trust was present and tabled a report on the work of the Trust and its Advisory Committee to date, as well as making some initial suggestions for consideration by the Council.
He informed the Committee of:
He posed questions to the Committee related to:
1. How much of the $300M will be generated by the building owners through funding and maintaining an effective use for the properties?
2. Is the Council providing the maximum incentives possible under the Resource Management and Building Acts?
3. Can the Council create a CBD environment which will encourage residential and other uses? This may mean purchasing and demolishing some buildings to provide public open space.
4. Will there be sufficient ratepayer support for a substantial sum to be set aside to assist the retention of the most important 321 listed buildings (other than private dwellings)?
The Committee requested that a report be prepared detailing the heritage related existing policies, with the intention of forming a consolidated Council heritage policy.
8. SUMMIT ROAD (CANTERBURY) PROTECTION BILL RR 5233
A report from the Legal Services Manager outlined details of the Bill which is intended to update and replace the current Summit Road (Canterbury) Protection Act 1963.
The report is also to be considered by the Strategy & Resources Committee.
The Committee decided to support the variation of the Banks Peninsula District Council and Selwyn District Council District Plans and the Christchurch City Council City Plan as appropriate, to give effect to those plans containing rules that are similar to the provisions in the proposed Summit Road (Canterbury) Protection Bill.
9. GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES RR 5146
The Committee received a report from the Environmental Policy & Planning Manager providing information on the following matters:
(a) Canterbury Regional Council Draft 1997/98 Annual Plan
(b) Hotels in Christchurch
(c) Central city pedestrian surveys 1997
10. DELEGATIONS FOR COMMISSIONERS RR 5224
In addition to the report's recommendations contained in Part A, the Committee requested that a schedule of Environmental service delegations adopted by the Council, be a subject for discussion at an Environmental Committee seminar at an early date.
A review of the consequences of Resource Management Hearings Panel decisions, a paper on which was being prepared by Councillor Dodge, could also be a seminar topic.
11. RESERVE CONTRIBUTIONS RR 5156
A request for a reduction in the development levy (reserve contribution) for apartment development on the corner of Worcester Street and Fitzgerald Avenue, was the subject of a report from the Team Leader - Subdivisions.
The Committee resolved that the development of 36 one bedroom/studio units be required to pay the amount of development levy (reserve contribution) based on a contribution rate of cash value of 20m2 per unit after the first two units.
12. ITEMS RECEIVED
The Committee received the following report:
12.1 ASSISTANCE FOR SUBMITTERS TO CITY PLAN HEARINGS RR 5191
A report from the Hearings Advisor informed members on the additional services being offered to submitters to the City Plan.
The meeting concluded at 5.35 pm.
CONSIDERED THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY 1997
MAYOR