This page is not a current Christchurch City Council document. Please read our disclaimer.
25. 2. 98
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE
9 FEBRUARY 1998
A meeting of the Environmental Committee
was held on Monday 9 February 1998 at 4 pm
| PRESENT: | Councillor Carole Evans (Chairman), Councillors Oscar Alpers, Anna Crighton, Newton Dodge, Pat Harrow, Charles Manning and Barbara Stewart. |
| APOLOGIES: | Apologies for absence were received and accepted from Councillor Lesley Keast |
| Councillor Alpers arrived at 4.05 pm and left at 4.15 pm and was not present for all clauses other than item number 7. |
The Committee reports that:
PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION
1. DELEGATION FOR BOND CANCELLATION RR 6845
| Officer responsible | Author |
| Environmental Services Manager | Gabrielle Tasman |
| Corporate Plan Output: Environmental Services - Consents and Applications | |
The purpose of this report is to seek delegated authority to sign documents authorising the cancellation of bonds and covenants used in the administration of the City Plan.
BACKGROUND
A working group of Planners and legal advisers has been working on ways of improving procedures and drafting new forms for bonds and covenants where these are required by the City Plan or resource consent conditions. The aim was to ensure consistency and efficiency in the use of these legal instruments and where possible to reduce costs for applicants.
Bonds and covenants are sometimes required to be registered on a Certificate of Title because of either a provision of the City Plan or a resource consent condition. Common use of such legal instruments occurs, for example, with family flats, relocatable buildings and elderly persons housing.
DELEGATED AUTHORITY SOUGHT
When a bond or covenant is required to be registered on a Certificate of Title only the registered proprietor needs to sign the document, not the Council. However Council staff ensure registration is carried out and also provide a condition that the resource consent does not take effect until the bond/covenant is registered. However, once the condition which the bond or covenant is there to protect has been fulfilled (eg, the family flat may have been removed), the Council's consent is then necessary to cancel the bond/covenant. The authority for this is contained within Sections 108 and 109 of the Resource Management Act.
Once a request is made to the Council for cancellation of a bond or covenant, an inspection will be made by an Enforcement Officer, who would need to confirm that the provisions of the bond or covenant have been completed and that it is now appropriate for the bond or covenant to be released. In order to reduce the cost to the applicant (who would otherwise have to pay a $60 Council sealing fee) and for efficiency of administration, delegated authority is sought for the cancellation of bonds/covenant document to be signed by the Environmental Services Unit Manager, and a number of senior officers.
| Recommendation: | That pursuant to Section 34(4) of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Council delegate to the Environmental Services Manager and to the Team Leader Planning Administration, Team Leader Subdivisions and Area Development Officers, authority to sign the cancellation of bond and cancellation of covenant documents to release these instruments where registered under Sections 108 and 109 of the Resource Management Act. |
| 2. | PROPOSED VARIATION TO CITY PLAN - PROTECTED BUILDINGS, PLACES AND OBJECTS | RR 6847 |
| Officer responsible | Author |
| Environmental Services Manager | Bob Nixon |
| Corporate Plan Output: City Plan | |
The purpose of this report is to recommend to the Council that it initiate a variation to the City Plan to alter the rules relating to protected buildings, places and objects.
This variation is proposed to be initiated because of issues that have arisen with regard to the Cathedral Square Redevelopment, although the variation will relate to all listed heritage places, buildings and objects.
The Resource Management Act provides for a range of resource consent applications, including prohibited, non-complying, discretionary, and controlled. Within the category of discretionary activities, a district plan can choose whether the discretionary activity relates to the whole activity, or whether the council limits its discretion over that activity to certain matters.
Under Clauses 1.3.1 and 1.3.2, the alteration or removal of Group 1 and Group 2 buildings is a discretionary activity, whereas for Group 3 and 4 buildings, alterations or removal is a controlled activity, "with the exercise of the Council's discretion limited to matters concerning the design, appearance and setting of the building".
The intention of the rules relating to the alteration and removal of heritage buildings (and additional buildings on sites containing heritage items) was to focus assessment on effects relating to the heritage values of the listed item, and not other matters. Legal advice has indicated that by having the alteration or removal of buildings a discretionary activity as a whole (as it currently is for Group 1 and 2 items), matters unrelated to heritage (eg. traffic generation, activities within buildings) could also be raised. These are either duplicated through other rules, and/or could be potentially onerous on the owners of listed items. As an example, if alterations were undertaken to a heritage building to enable its protection (such as changing its use) the proposal could be subject to scrutiny through the required resource consent in terms of matters unrelated to the effects on its heritage values.
Accordingly, Variation 31 proposes to make the alteration or removal of heritage items, and additional buildings on sites containing heritage items in Groups 1 and 2, a development standard. The exercise of the Council's discretion on resource consents will therefore be limited to matters concerning the heritage values of the listed item which have been defined. For consistency, the wording heritage values will also be applied to Group 3 and 4 listed items instead of "design, appearance and setting". This also better accords with Policy 4.3.1 in the City Plan. In addition, it is proposed to alter the wording relating to the Council's discretion from "of the building" to "of the protected building, place or object". This will result in the wording being consistent in terms of the Council's discretion for Group 1-4 heritage items. It will also result in the Council's limited discretion being exercised over objects and places, as well as buildings, which the listings contain.
The Council's legal advice is that once this variation is notified, it will have legal effect, and will replace the provisions of the Proposed Plan as notified. Any applicant wishing to carry out alterations to a Group 1 or 2 heritage building, place or object, from the date of notification of the variation, will be able to rely on the variation rather than the Plan as notified. This means that when the Council considers any such application it will be limited to matters concerning the heritage values of the protected building, place or object.
| Recommendation: | That pursuant to Clause 5 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Council initiate proposed Variation Number 31 to the Christchurch City Proposed District Plan. |
(Note: Councillor Manning withdrew from this clause and speaking and voting thereon.)
3. VARIATIONS TO THE PROPOSED CITY PLAN RR 6978
| Officer responsible | Author |
| Environmental Services Manager | Irene Clarke |
| Corporate Plan Output: City Plan | |
The purpose of this report is to propose eleven variations to the Christchurch City Proposed District Plan. These variations cover minor amendments, to correct inconsistencies and errors in the City Plan, and amend some rules which have been impractical to administer. The variations also include a proposal to rezone a site relating to the Council's Hornby Housing Project. An additional variation is also proposed to alter the rules relating to protected buildings, places and objects and the exercise of the Council's discretion. This is Variation Number 31 and is proposed in a separate report to this meeting. The nature of the eleven variations is summarised below.
Variation Number 23 adds the Youth Education Centre to the list of schools in Part 7.3 of Volume 3 of the Plan. The site has an existing zoning of Cultural 3. The zone rules applicable to activities other than education on school sites is amended for three other schools on that list to ensure the most appropriate rules are applicable.
Variation Number 24 corrects the legal description for the Transpower designation on Waterloo Road. The amendment will ensure that all of the designated area (as shown on the Planning Map) is included in the list of designations in Part 12 of Volume 3 of the Plan.
Variation Number 25 corrects the Planning Maps to reflect the withdrawal of the "Railway Purposes" designation on three separate sites in the City.
Variation Number 26 alters the formatting of the standard "Lines and support structures" in Part 9.4 (Utilities) of Volume 3 of the Plan. This will clarify that the exceptions listed apply to all of subclauses (a) to (d).
Variation Number 27 inserts a new subclause into Clause 8.4.3, Extent of Special Purpose (Road) Zone. The new subclause will clarify the zoning which is adopted when a legal road is stopped.
Variation Number 29 amends two Transit NZ road widening designations on Russley Road. These designations have already been altered in the Transitional Plan and the road works have been completed. This Variation will update the roading designation maps in Part 12 of Volume 3 of the Plan.
Variation Number 30 amends Planning Map 32A to show a symbol for road works on Westminster Street and therefore ensure the Planning Map is consistent with the list of roading designations and detailed maps in Part 12 of Volume 3 of the Plan.
Variation Number 32 amends the standard for residential coherence in living zones to clarify the intention of the rule that there will be no more than a total of two non-residential activities on front sites in a residential block.
Variation Number 33 amends the term "building density" to "residential site density" in the definition of Net area. Building density is not a term used in the rules and has made the definition unclear as to its application.
Variation Number 34 rezones land at 2 Goulding Avenue, Hornby from Open Space 1 to Living 2. This rezoning will allow for the development of a 1.8930 ha site for Council housing as recommended in the Housing Needs Study 1996. This study was adopted by the Council in December 1996. Development of the site for residential and community activities was provided for in the Transitional Plan (Paparua Section) but this was not carried forward into the Proposed Plan. The Living 2 zoning will be consistent with the living zoning in the vicinity. The Property Unit have prepared a specific design for the site in association with the Hornby community which includes the erection of 55 units to cater for particular housing needs as identified in the Housing Needs Study 1996. This Variation will only proceed to be notified if the special meeting of the Community Services Committee in February resolves to adopt the specific design for the site.
Variation Number 35 raises the Residential coherence standard in living zones from a Community standard to a Critical standard, and raises the Scale of activity standard from a Development standard to a Community standard. Both of these standards relate to non-residential activities in living zones. The Variation reflects the importance of these standards in maintaining residential amenity and coherence, and the potential for significant adverse effects over a wider area than indicated by the level of each of the standards in the Plan as notified. The Variation will provide the Council wider scope for assessing activities which do not comply with these standards.
Copies of the variations and assessments are appended.
| Recommendation: |
|
4. SKATEBOARDING BAN RR 6974
| Officer responsible | Author |
| Environmental Policy & 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 put forward the areas where a prohibition on skateboarding should be applied with recommended conditions as to the extent of the prohibitions.
INTRODUCTION
The results of enquiries made of Community Boards and the Central City Committee are summarised below for the information of Councillors
The Riccarton/Wigram Community Board, while supportive of the bylaw agreed that there were no public areas within the Riccarton and/or Wigram wards that could be included into the bylaw for prohibiting this activity. The Board concluded that the skateboard users should be encouraged to use on-park facilities, eg Wycola Park, and might consider the use of project funds to develop more on-park facilities such as at Kyle Park and the Rollerdrome. Through the youth worker, to be based in Hornby, it was also suggested that a meeting be held with skateboard groups to discuss current `issues' and locations for new facilities.
The Burwood/Pegasus Community Board resolved that New Brighton Mall be included on the list of sites that is being compiled for the purpose of consulting with youth but it should go through this process before it is made an area prohibiting skateboarding under the bylaw.
The Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board have advised they are seeking further information from businesses in Woolston and Sumner, from whom petitions have been received, on the extent of their concerns before making any recommendation.
The Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board have recommended that a prohibition on skateboarding be placed on the footways and parking areas at Bishopdale Mall and on that portion of Papanui Road between Office Road and Aikmans Road on the west side and St Albans Street and Mansfield Avenue on the east side.
The Central City Committee resolved that a joint meeting of the Environmental Committee and Central City Committee be held to hear submissions and to consider the banning of skateboards in the following areas.
Colombo Street (Lichfield Street to Kilmore Street)
Rolleston Avenue (outside the Museum)
City Mall
Cathedral Square
Worcester Boulevard
Victoria Square
COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED AREAS
The following comments were made as part of the report to the Committee at its meeting on the 13 November 1997 and are repeated here for completeness.
From the discussions that have been held with representatives of skateboarding supporters, including some skateboarders and those in the industry, it is clear that since its opening the Victoria Square Amphitheatre has become a major venue for the activity of skateboarding, both from the point of view of its design and from the lack of any similar venue in the central city. This group does not see that this activity causes significant problems, despite what is seen as an over reaction in the media regarding skateboard who can be irresponsible but do not consider these to be a significant number amongst the largely responsible majority who take part in the activity. They do see the need for further provision to be made for the activity in the central area of Christchurch as this is a place where young people wish to meet with their friends and peers. It is a growing sport and is tied with an increased amount of business associated with it.
Other central city areas are less well used, tiled surfaces are not evidently the surface of choice for skateboarding in general terms, but some central city pedestrian areas are used for movement through the city. In general these are used just for that purpose and in the main there appears to be little creation of problems, although even the limited numbers of such persons travelling through can create a reaction from some persons as to a perception of possible danger. In terms of safety the use of roadways for such travel on skateboards is considered unsafe due to the high motor vehicle traffic flows on many central city streets and other roadways.
There could be significant problems involved in the enforcement of any prohibitions, not least in the provision of resources for this action. For this purpose it is considered that the selection of areas to which prohibitions are to apply need to be considered on the basis of applying the prohibition only to the times at which the problems are perceived to be significant. For those areas where the problem is perceived to be related to high pedestrian flows during day-time or where pedestrian space has been limited by other activities protruding onto pedestrian spaces, for example in the City Mall or Worcester Boulevard outside the Arts Centre, it may be that the prohibition should apply during daylight or shopping hours only. In the case of areas in which weekend activities create higher pedestrian numbers, as opposed to lower numbers during the working week the prohibition could be applied at weekends only.
In terms of numbers of skateboarders undertaking sporting activities, as opposed to merely travelling on skateboards, the major public space used (at least in the central city area) appears to be the Victoria Square Amphitheatre. If a prohibition is placed on this area it would seem to be sensible that some other central, as opposed to suburban, site should be available for these skateboarders to undertake the activities. If the proposed skateboard park at Washington Reserve is either delayed or not implemented it is considered that some other provision should be introduced at the time a prohibition is placed on Victoria Square.
The area in front of the Museum in Rolleston Avenue can create some problems from possible damage to the bases of statues for example, and possible conflict with pedestrians (although the cycle-way in that area could have a similar possible conflict perception).
Worcester Boulevard has heavy pedestrian use, particularly at weekends when the Arts Centre market is operated in the section from Montreal Street to Rolleston Avenue. A prohibition on this area could be considered for that period in that area. The area of Worcester Boulevard by the Worcester Street Bridge and the Scott Stature has been complained about, particularly in relation to damage to steps outside the Tourist Centre. A prohibition on this area could be considered also.
In the case of City Mall the High Street section (from Hereford Street to High Street/Cashel Street corner) is used for skateboarders to travel through to the eastern areas of the central city and even this activity seems to be limited, at least during the daylight hours. While there have been approaches made as to problems occurring in the other parts of the City Mall observation, at least during shopping hours during the week, have not revealed significant numbers of skateboarders in that area. If there are problems they are likely to occur when larger numbers of pedestrians are present and this is more likely during shopping hours.
A similar situation may exist in the Colombo Street area of the central city to that in City Mall. There is little evidence of significant skateboarding activities along the stretch from Lichfield to Kilmore Streets, although some young persons with skateboards have been seen in the area of the "fast food" outlets between City Mall and Hereford Street on a few occasions. The area of major bus stops on the south east side of City Mall, by the Arthur Barnett store is notable for the lack of pedestrian space and could be considered an area to which a prohibition could be applied.
Currently Cathedral Square seems to be relatively free of skateboarding activities, although some does evidently occur on some of the stepped areas. Other activities do take place there, such as the commercial stalls and from time to time functions, which tend to limit the clear space for such activities. It is not known what effect the proposed changes to the Square will have on pedestrian flows in the area, or the amounts of useable clear space.
In the case of Bishopdale Mall it is understood some areas are under private ownership and a plan should be provided to clearly define the public areas to which the prohibition should apply.
In the case of the Papanui Road areas there is no evidence of such activities taking place and causing any problems. Personal examination of this area has never revealed such activities occurring in the area.
Following a meeting with a number of representatives of skateboarders the following comments were received about each of the areas mentioned.
Cathedral Square
Due to the ample space, and no evidence of problems caused by skateboarders, there is no need for a ban. Maybe a small zone where users could walk through without skateboarders going past would be appropriate.
Worcester Boulevard
No evidence to support this area having any bans whatsoever. It could be an ideal `skate zone' for skaters to use due to lack of traffic, although cobblestones are a bit preventative.
Colombo Street
Likewise with Worcester Blvd, except for Hereford - Lichfield St on both sides. Colombo Street is overcrowded with many things, not just skateboarders, although a ban on `riding fast' or speed restrictions at certain times of the day may be appropriate.
Victoria Square
See attached letter from Rev. Dr David Brommel. Location and design are the reasons most skateboarders use it. Evidence from two long and frequent users of the Square who are not skateboarders support skating in the area. (Dr Brommel and the busker). The busker has said safety will become even more of an issue with no skateboarders around.
Rolleston Avenue
A ban on skateboarding on the Statue would seem sufficient.
Sumner
Not enough information to know whether it is founded for a complete ban or not.
Woolston
Same as Sumner
The group also made the following suggestions
SUMMARY
There is evidence that skateboarding can be both damaging to the fixtures and fittings in public spaces and a potential hazard and nuisance to other users of these spaces.
The work done to the surrounds of the raised grassed area in front of the Centra Hotel in Cashel St has been successful in discouraging skateboarders from riding the edges and creating noise and damage. It seems appropriate therefore to examine the areas such as the bases of statues that this sort of physical treatment may be sufficient to effectively remove skateboarders without the need for enforcing a bylaw. The statue in front of the Museum on Rolleston St may be a good example for this approach. There is also evidence that the grooved tiles placed at the corners of the streets in the Central City also discourages skateboard riding. In this way the design of public spaces is a critical factor in whether or not skateboarders are likely to pose a problem to other users.
At this stage it is proposed that a ban on skateboarding only be applied to Victoria Square until such times as evidence for any further bans becomes clearer.
| Recommendation: |
|
| 5. | GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES | RR 6965 |
| Officer responsible | Author |
| Environmental Policy and Planning Manager | John Dryden, Environmental Policy and Planning Manager |
| Corporate Plan Output: Various | |
NEW ZEALAND PLANNING INSTITUTE CONFERENCE, DUNEDIN
This year's Planning Institute Conference is being held in Dunedin on 18-21 March. The general theme concerns the Resource Management Act and its implication and administration over the past six years. The Conference agenda will be tabled.
It would be appropriate for one or two members of the Environmental Committee to attend the Conference.
| Recommendation: | That Councillors Pat Harrow and Charles Manning be authorised to attend the 1998 New Zealand Planning Institute Conference, as the City Council's representatives. |
| 6. | DRAFT HEATHCOTE RIVER FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT STRATEGY | RR 6976 |
| Officer responsible | Author |
| Environmental Policy and Planning Manager and Water Services Manager | Robert Watts, Planning Manager Jenny Ridgen, Environmental Resources Officer |
| Corporate Plan Output: Environment, Conservation and Open Space | |
The Draft Heathcote Floodplain Management Strategy has been jointly prepared by officers of the Christchurch City Council and Canterbury Regional Council. It now is presented to the Committee for support in principle and for it to recommend that the strategy be made available to the community and other stakeholders in the Heathcote River catchment for 'comment'. This outcome is also being sought from the equivalent Committee of the Canterbury Regional Council.
The draft strategy was presented to the Joint Christchurch City Council/Canterbury Regional Council Committee in December 1997. The Joint Committee supported the strategy in principle and considered that it should be made available for public comment.
The Draft Heathcote River Floodplain Management Strategy is a non statutory document prepared to provide a management overview of potential flood damage issues associated with the Heathcote River floodplain. The two Councils jointly embarked on its preparation with the release of an 'issues and options' public discussion document in 1993. Following this, the computer based modelling of flood events under various land use scenarios has been advanced and an economic assessment of many of the possible floodplain management measures undertaken, along with other work.
The draft strategy has taken an integrated catchment management approach. It examines both the present flood damage issues as well as those that are predicted as a result of further development within the catchment (this includes development in the upper part of the catchment as signalled in Policy 6.3.16 of the Proposed Christchurch City Plan). Implementation of the strategy is mainly reliant on the City Council acting through its annual plan, asset management plans and city plan.
Due to the strategy's non statutory nature, there is no formal public consultation process legally required prior to its adoption. As part of the implementation of the final strategy, some of its individual measures will be subject to further formal public consultation. Therefore, it is prudent that the public be provided with the opportunity to make 'comment' on the draft strategy prior to it being recommended to each Council for adoption. It is proposed that, in outline, this would be achieved by preparing and distributing a summary pamphlet to the affected households within the catchment, public meetings (organised through the Community Boards) and inviting written comment. This would occur in the February/March/April 1998 period.
Attached to this report is the Executive Summary which contains the basis of the draft strategy, and two key maps illustrating it.
| Recommendation: |
|
7. LONG TERM URBAN DEVELOPMENT RR 6991
| Officer responsible | Author |
| Environmental Policy and Planning Manager | Ivan Thomson, Senior Planner, Planning Policy |
| Corporate Plan Output: Plans and Policy Statements | |
The purpose of this report is to obtain Council approval for amendments to the terms of reference of the Urban Development Strategy Joint Standing Committee.
The Urban Development Strategy Joint Standing Committee was established in October 1996 with an initial brief of preparing a preferred long term growth option for the area in and around Christchurch. The Committee comprises elected members from the City Council, Banks Peninsula, Selwyn, Waimakariri and Hurunui Districts, and the Regional Council. The Committee has since met twice, the last meeting being in September 1997.
During 1997 legal questions were raised by the City Council regarding possible threats posed by the long term growth project to the review of the Proposed City Plan. The City Council requested that there be no public consultation until decisions on the Plan were notified and that the Joint Committee meet only twice a year. Members of the City Plan Hearings Panel met in October 1997 and sought that an amendment be made to the Terms of Reference to limit the role of the Joint Committee to preparing options, rather than preferred strategy.
The proposal was considered by the Joint Office Working Party in November 1997 and a number of proposed amendments were made to the Terms of Reference along the lines requested. Changes have been made to the Mission Statement and Objectives shifting the focus of the work towards development alternative strategies and postponing community consultation to after the decisions of the City Plan are publicly notified and appeal dates have closed.
The proposed amendments, which have been sent to all member Councils, are attached showing the original wording that has been struck out and highlighting the proposed new wording. It is intended that a meeting of the Joint Committee be convened in March to adopt the new Terms of Reference.
| Recommendation: | That the amendments to the Terms of Reference of the Urban Development Strategy Joint Standing Committee be referred to other Councils in the region and adopted, subject to their comment. |
PART B - REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
8. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
VARIATION NO 34 GOULDING AVENUE HORNBY
Representatives of the Common Ground Association were present to answer questions related to the preparation of the proposed Variation and the public consultation process that they were contracted to carry out.
Mr Mark Prain representing the Association provided brief details of the workshop sessions held and the matters looked at in meeting the needs of the community. A revised plan was tabled showing the layout and content of the area.
The variation is referred to in clause 3.
9. CLEANER PRODUCTION STUDY TOUR RR 6789
The Committee received a report from the Commercial Waste Minimisation Officer of the key points learnt from attendance at the European Round Table on cleaner production at Oslo, visits to local authorities in the United Kingdom and Denmark, and visits with other organisations promoting cleaner production to business and industry. The Committee decided:
10. WATER METERING AND USE RR 6948
The Committee received a report from the Water Services Manager providing information on:
Domestic Meter Reading
Summer Consumption
Water Strategy
Water Conservation Demonstration Home
The report was also to be referred to the City Services Committee.
The Committee agreed to receive the information contained within the report and support:
| 11. | LIKELIHOOD OF OVERSPENDING, CITY PLAN AND COMMISSIONERS | RR 6872 |
A report from the Environmental Services Manager drew attention to likelihood of an over-expenditure in the City Plan output, and in the Resource Consent output of the Environmental Services Unit. The Committee decided to endorse the likely over-expenditure in the City Plan output and Resource Consent of the Environmental Services Unit.
12. VEHICLE FLEET EMISSIONS CONTROL STRATEGY RR 6835
A copy of the submissions made to the Ministry of Transport on the consultation document Vehicle Emissions Control Strategy - Stage 1 was provided by the Senior Transportation Planner for the Committee's information.
The purpose of the strategy is to determine the direction for policy to control the impact of vehicle emissions on local air quality.
The Committee requested that a report be prepared detailing the testing procedures to be applied in monitoring the Council's own vehicle fleet emissions.
13. UPDATE ON HERITAGE BUILDINGS RR 6979
The Committee received a comprehensive report from the Planner (Heritage) providing current information on listed heritage buildings which are under threat of demolition or alteration or where their future is uncertain.
The Committee requested
14. GIBRALTAR FARM PURCHASE RR 6982
The Parks Planner (Policy) reported on a request by the Wai-ora Trust for the city's support for the purchase of Gibraltar Farm on the Port Hills by the Selwyn District Council for a reserve.
Wai-ora Trust has an agreement to purchase 192 hectares of land at the head of Otahuna Valley on the Port Hills.
The report was also referred to the Parks and Recreation Committee.
The Committee decided that
15. ITEMS RECEIVED
The Committee received the following report:
15.1 Report from Environmental Policy and Planning Manager
on general environmental, planning and development issues RR
6965
16. ITEMS OF GENERAL INTEREST
The Committee discussed additional items covering:
16.1 Mandeville Street historic dwelling demolition proposal
16.2 Roadside stall licences.
The meeting concluded at 6.55 pm.
CONSIDERED THIS 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1998
MAYOR
SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT BY THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE
17. DELEGATION - SUBDIVISION PROCESSING RR 7113
| Officer responsible | Author |
| Environmental Services Manager | Team Leader Subdivisions |
| Corporate Plan Output: Subdivisions Applications | |
The purpose of this report is to approve delegations relating to the processing of subdivisions as a result of recent changes to the Resource Management Act.
The Resource Management Amendment Act 1997 came into force on 17 December 1997 and amends numerous provisions which impact on the approval process of survey plans and associated documents.
1. APPROVAL OF SURVEY PLANS BY COUNCILS
The use of Common Seals has been abolished in respect of approvals under Section 223 and the new provision requires the approval certificate to be signed by the Principal Administrative Officer or other authorised Officer.
2. COVENANTS AGAINST TRANSFER OF ALLOTMENTS
Section 240(3) of the principal Act originally required amalgamation covenants to be executed by Council under seal. That requirement has been removed and such covenants must now be signed by the Principal Administrative Officer or other authorised officer.
Similarly, cancellation of amalgamation covenants (Section 240(5)(b) documents are also now required to be certified by the Principal Administrative Officer or other authorised officer.
3. AMALGAMATION OF ALLOTMENTS
Section 241(4)(b) of the Principal Act which provides for cancellation of amalgamation conditions has been amended in a similar fashion to Section 240(5).
4. CANCELLATION OF CONDITIONS AS TO EASEMENTS
The original Section 243(f)(ii) provided that cancellations following approval as to survey must be effected by forwarding to the District Land Registrar an authenticated copy of the resolution of the territorial authority cancelling the condition as to easements. This has been replaced with a new provision which requires such cancellation to be effective in the form of a certificate signed by the Principal Administrative Officer or other authorised officer.
The Principal Administrative Officer is the City Manager. All of the above matters are day to day administration processes performed by Council's Subdivision Officers, and these officers already have delegated authority to act as the Principal Administrative Officer in a number of existing subdivision processes.
Therefore, it is proposed that the Team Leader Subdivisions and any Subdivision Officer be the authorised officer able to certify the above referred documentation.
APPROVAL FOR RIGHTS OF WAY PLANS
Section 348 Local Government Act requires Council's prior permission to layout or form any private way or grant or reserve a right of way over any private way. Currently, Easement Plans of Right of Way which are lodged at Land Information New Zealand to be deposited, are executed under seal. In light of the new requirement to only certify a Survey Plan, it is considered that Easement Plans of Rights of Way should also be certified by an authorised officer, the appropriate officers being Team Leader Subdivisions and any Subdivision Officer.
| Chairman's Recommendation: |
|
CONSIDERED THIS 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1998
MAYOR