BEFORE THE HEARINGS PANEL. In the Matter of: The Resource Management Act And. Proposed Plan Change 22A-G: Palmerston North City Council

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE HEARINGS PANEL In the Matter of: And The Resource Management Act 1991 Proposed Plan Change 22A-G: Application By: Palmerston North City Council Section 42A of the RMA Report BY LUCY COOPER (pages ), DEBORAH DONALDSON (pages 18-97, and ) AND ROWAN SAPSFORD (pages ) Dated: 12 September 2018

2 P 2

3 Introduction Preamble 1) This report is prepared under s42a of the Resource Management Act It has been prepared at the request of Palmerston North City Council (PNCC) in relation to Proposed Plan Change PC22A-G. 2) PC22A-G is made up of a review of the following components: A. Introduction, Information Requirements and Monitoring (Sections 1, 5 and 25); B. Signs (Section 6); C. Noise (Section 6); D. Subdivision (Section 7); E. Transportation (Section 20); F. Natural Hazards (Section 22); and G. Miscellaneous (Cultural and Natural Heritage and Local Business Zone) (Sections 17 and 11) 3) This report addresses the review of the provisions contained within the sections of the District Plan in the list above. This report analyses and responds to submissions received on those provisions proposed in PC22A-G. 4) Lucy Cooper, Deborah Donaldson and Rowan Sapsford of Perception Planning Limited have been engaged by PNCC to provide planning advice and support in respect of PC22A-G. Their involvement with PC22A-G commenced in September 2016 when they were asked to review the Sections of the District Plan relevant to the scope of the Plan Change. The work comprised the following: Review of the existing sections of the Plan; Consultation and discussion with Council Officers and technical experts; Preparation of draft provisions; Preparation of the s32 evaluation reports; Summarising of submissions and further submissions; Consultation with submitters; Analysis of submissions and the preparation of the s42a report; Attendance at Council meetings. 5) Lucy Cooper is a Senior Planner with Perception Planning Limited, a resource management planning consultancy based in Martinborough in the Wairarapa. She holds the qualification of a Masters in Town and Country Planning (University of the West of England). She has 15 years 3

4 of planning experience,and has worked for private planning practice in local government in the United Kingdom, and within the private resource management planning industry in New Zealand since she emigrated to the country in ) Ms Cooper was responsible for the development of PC22D (Section 7 - Subdivision) and E (Section 20 Transportation) and for writing the s42a report on those topics. 7) Deborah Donaldson is a Planner with Perception Planning Limited, a resource management planning consultancy based in Martinborough in the Wairarapa. She holds a Bachelor of Laws and a Bachelor of Science (Major Geography) from Victoria University, Wellington. She has over 10 years of planning experience and has worked for private planning practice and local government in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. 8) Ms Donaldson was responsible for the development of PC22A (Section 1 Introduction, Section 5 Information Requirements and Section 25 Monitoring), B (Section 6.1 Signs), and C (Section 6.2 Noise) and for writing the s42a report on those topics and has written the s42a for PPC22G: Miscellaneous (Section 11 - Local Business and Section 17 - Cultural and Natural Heritage. 9) Rowan Sapsford is a Senior Planner with Perception Planning Limited, a resource management planning consultancy based in Taupō and Martinborough. He holds the academic qualifications of Bachelor of Resource and Environmental Planning (Massey University 1998) and a Post Graduate Diploma in Rural Studies - Natural Resource Management (Massey University 1998). He has twenty years professional experience in resource management planning including employment with local government in New Zealand and in the United Kingdom, central government and as a private consultant. 10) Mr Sapsford was responsible for the development of PC 22F Natural Hazards and for writing the s42a report on those topics. He was also involved in the development of PC 15D Natural Hazards, to the Plan. 11) The purpose of this report is to assess the proposed plan change in terms of the relevant statutory considerations and obligations, considering those issues raised by submissions. 12) Each of the report writers have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses (Section 7 of the Environment Court Consolidated Practice Note 2014) and agree to comply with this Code of Conduct. This evidence is within their areas of expertise, except where they state they are relying on what they have been told by another person. They have not omitted to consider material facts known to them that might alter or detract from the opinions they express. 13) The following is a list of abbreviations referred to throughout my report: PPC15A-G Proposed Plan Change 22A-G PNCC Palmerston North City Council RMA or the Act Resource Management Act 1991 Plan District Plan 4

5 IBZ Inner Business Zone SDPR Sectional District Plan Review RDA Restricted Discretionary Activity OTHERS 14) The focus of this report will be to assess the issues raised in submissions to determine whether the decisions requested are appropriate, taking into account Good planning practice; The requirements of the RMA; and The relationship with the broader planning framework under the District Plan and its implementation and consistent administration. 15) Generally, submissions have been grouped into topics, and the report for each aspect of PPC22A-G is structured as follows: 16) The following appendices are included with this report: Appendix 1 Expert evidence as follows: o o o o Mr Nigel Lloyd, Noise Mr David Charnley, Urban Design Signs Mr Andrew Collins, Illuminated Signs Ms Harriet Fraser, Land Transport Appendix 2 Section 32AA assessment table Appendix 3 Table of definitions relating to access Appendix 4 Track change provisions Appendix 5 Summary of recommendations 5

6 Table of Contents 1. OVERVIEW... 9 THE PLAN CHANGE PROCESS... 9 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PLAN CHANGE... 9 PPC22A - INTRODUCTION, INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS AND MONITORING (SECTIONS 1, 5 AND 25)... 9 PPC22B - SIGNS (SECTION 6.1) PPC22C - NOISE (SECTION 6) PPC22D - SUBDIVISION (SECTION 7) PPC22E - TRANSPORTATION (SECTION 20) PPC22F - NATURAL HAZARDS (SECTION 22) PPPC22G - MISCELLANEOUS (CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE AND LOCAL BUSINESS ZONE) (SECTIONS 17 AND 11) PLAN CHANGE PREPARATION CHRONOLOGY STRUCTURE OF THIS S42A REPORT STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS OVERVIEW OF SUBMISSIONS GENERAL OBSERVATIONS MATTERS OUT OF SCOPE OF PC22A-G SUBMISSIONS RELATING TO ALL SECTIONS OF PC22A-G SUBMISSIONS RELATING TO THE ENTIRE PLAN CHANGE NOTIFICATION OF THE PLAN CHANGE BOLDED DEFINITIONS CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS PPC22A INTRODUCTION, INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS AND MONITORING (SECTIONS 1, 5 AND 25) ISSUES RAISED IN SUBMISSIONS ON INTRODUCTION, INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS AND MONITORING TOPIC ONE INTRODUCTION TOPIC TWO INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS TOPIC TWO MONITORING PPC22B SIGNS (SECTION 6) ISSUES RAISED IN SUBMISSIONS ON SIGNS TOPIC ONE: DEFINITIONS

7 TOPIC TWO: INTRODUCTION TOPIC THREE: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ISSUES TOPIC FOUR: OBJECTIVE 1 AND POLICES 1.1 AND TOPIC FIVE: OBJECTIVE 2 AND POLICIES TOPIC SIX: METHODS TOPIC SEVEN: PERMITTED ACTIVITIES TOPIC EIGHT: ILLUMINATED SIGNS TOPIC NINE: CONTROLLED ACTIVITIES TOPIC TEN: RESTRICTED DISCRETIONARY AND DISCRETIONARY ACTIVITIES TOPIC ELEVEN: MISCELLANEOUS PPC22C NOISE (SECTION 6) ISSUES RAISED IN SUBMISSIONS ON NOISE TOPIC ONE: DEFINITIONS TOPIC TWO: VIBRATION TOPIC THREE: NOISE LIMITS TOPIC FOUR: NOTIONAL BOUNDARY TOPIC FOUR: EXCLUSIONS FROM NOISE CONTROL RULES TOPIC FIVE: MISCELLANEOUS PPC22D SUBDIVISION (SECTION 7) ISSUES RAISED IN SUBMISSIONS SUBDIVISION TOPIC ONE: INTRODUCTION AND PRINCIPLE REASONS TOPIC TWO: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ISSUES TOPIC THREE: POLICIES TOPIC FOUR: HISTORIC HERITAGE TOPIC FIVE: RULES TOPIC SIX: MISCELLANEOUS PPC22E LAND TRANSPORTATION (SECTION 20) ISSUES RAISED IN SUBMISSIONS ON LAND TRANSPORTATION TOPIC ONE: RAIL TOPIC TWO: CYCLING TOPIC THREE: CAR PARKING PROVISIONS RECOMMENDATIONS ON TOPIC THREE: CAR PARKING PROVISIONS TOPIC FOUR: CAR PARK DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ON TOPIC FOUR: CAR PARK DESIGN TOPIC FIVE: LOADING RECOMMENDATIONS ON TOPIC FIVE: LOADING TOPIC SIX: OTHER LIMITED ACCESS ROADS

8 FITZHERBERT AVENUE SOUTHBOUND RULE LEGIBILITY RESTRICTED DISCRETIONARY ACTIVITY ASSESSMENT CRITERIA DEFINITIONS SUPERMARKET FRONTAGE ROAD ACCESSIBLE ROUTE DEFINITIONS RELATED TO THE PROVISION OF ACCESS CONSISTENCY WITH EARLIER PLAN CHANGES RECOMMENDATIONS ON TOPIC SIX: OTHER PPC22F NATURAL HAZARDS (SECTION 22) ISSUES RAISED IN SUBMISSIONS ON NATURAL HAZARDS HORIZONS REGIONAL COUNCIL SUBMISSIONS FLOOD HAZARD LAND SLIPPAGE HAZARD LIQUEFACTION HAZARD SUBDIVISION ISSUE PIONEER WEST SUBMISSION PPPC22G MISCELLANEOUS (CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE AND LOCAL BUSINESS ZONE) (SECTIONS 17 AND 11) ISSUES RAISED IN SUBMISSIONS ON MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS TOPIC ONE: 28 RANFURLY STREET TOPIC TWO: 123A BOTANICAL ROAD CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION CONCLUSION RECOMMENDATION

9 1. Overview The Plan Change Process 1.1 Proposed Plan Change 22A-G has been prepared and notified in accordance with section 74 of the RMA, and the first part of Schedule 1, which outlines the requirements for changing a District Plan. It is part of the Palmerston North City SDPR. 1.2 PC22A-G is part of the SDPR which breaks down the review of the District Plan into sections to be reviewed over a seven-year period. The current District Plan was prepared in 1990s and became fully operative in The Council is required to commence a review of those provisions in the District Plan that have not been reviewed in the last 10 years, pursuant to section 79 of the RMA. Palmerston North City Council (PNCC) is approaching the end of the SDPR process. Plan Change 22 (PC22) is essentially a final mop up plan change. Summary of Proposed Plan Change 1.3 A more comprehensive summary of each component of PC22A-G is provided in the s32 reports that accompanied the Plan Change. This section of the s42a report provides a brief overview of the key elements of PC22A-G. PPC22A - Introduction, Information Requirements and Monitoring (Sections 1, 5 and 25) 1.4 PC22A offers the opportunity to undertake a comprehensive and focused review of the provisions within the Plan to ensure that they are: Fit for purpose; Reflective of the current resource management issues that face the city; and Consistent with the objectives and policies of parts of the Plan recently reviewed. 1.5 Section 1 Introduction of the Plan provides background information to Plan Users about Palmerston North City and information which underlines the direction and approach taken by the District Plan. The Section also outlines the purpose of the Act, the Plan s relationship to the Act and other documents, and provides an outline of the contents and roles of the District Plan and how the Plan is to be used and interpreted. 1.6 The changes to Section 1 proposed by PC22A seek to further update the land use and areas table to reflect the land use established from the SDPR and update the narrative text of the Section where changes to legislation have occurred since the Plan became operative. 1.7 Section 5 Information Requirements is an administration section of the Plan. It has a navigation function, directing Plan Users about the process for making resource consent applications, and outlining what information is required to be submitted by applicants to the Council in order for an application to be processed. 9

10 1.8 The proposed changes to Section 5 Information Requirements will make a small shift from the status quo; however, changes are not proposed to the overall framework of Section 5. The changes are proposed to give effect to updated legislation, standards, best practise and procedures relating to the processing of resource consent applications and seek to provide more information to Plan Users. Those primarily effected by the proposed changes will be applicants of resource consent applications. 1.9 Monitoring of the Plan is managed by Section 25 of the Operative District Plan which includes objectives, policies and methods for monitoring and reporting in order for the Council to meet the obligations under s35 of the RMA The proposed approach of Section 25, being to have objectives and policies that reflect the obligations of s35 of the Act, is that it demonstrates to the public what the Council s obligations are, and how they will be achieved, but allows the Council flexibility in the establishment and implementation of how monitoring will be undertaken. The approach also allows the Council to prioritise monitoring activities and consider Council resource and budgets for monitoring over time. The Council in achieving the proposed objective, will have the required information to inform decision-making by determining the need for change, and indicating where policies and actions can be improved. PPC22B - Signs (Section 6.1) 1.11 Section 6.1- Signs has not been reviewed through the SDPR process, and as such PC22B offers the opportunity to undertake a comprehensive and focused review of the City s signs provisions PC22B involved the undertaking of an assessment of the effectiveness of the administration of the operative provisions. This process involved a review of: The SDPR process and how that Plan had been altered and amended though this process Section 6.1 Signs, Plan useability and interpretation The relationship of the Plan with the Signs and Use of Public Places Bylaw 2015 Permitted Activity Rules Determination Criteria Enforcement 1.13 The primary changes to Section 6.1 Signs from PC22B are; Signs must be related to the activity occurring on the site. Signs that do not relate to activities occurring on the site will require resource consent. Rules for commercial signs within Business and Industrial Zones have changed so they are more flexible at the business/residential interface. Additional permitted activity rules for illuminated and digital signs. Sponsorship signage at Recreational Facilities becomes a permitted activity. 10

11 Resource consent is required (as a Controlled Activity) for signs located above verandas within the Inner Business Zone. PPC22C - Noise (section 6) 1.14 Plan Change 22C proposes includes amendments to the Noise (Section 6.2) of the Plan The management of noise in District Plans seeks to provide a balance between providing for legitimate activities relating to enabling economic, cultural and social well-being while controlling the potential adverse noise effects of such activities. PC22C offers the opportunity to update Section 6.2 in response to changes that have occurred during the SDPR process and changes to legislation and standards. PC22C proposes to update the Section to ensure that the Section is technically accurate, and assists Plan Users in the interpretation and application of the noise provisions within the District Plan Reasons for carrying out a review of the noise provisions of the Operative District Plan include; a) The operative District Plan was made operative in December Section 79 of the RMA requires each provision of a District Plan to be reviewed every 10 years. b) The District Plan has been altered and amended through the SDPR process, which has included amendments to noise provisions contained within zones. Section 6.2 has undergone minor changes, associated with other plan changes but a full review of the chapter has not been undertaken. Changes to Section 6.2 are required to accurately reflect the changes to the remainder of the Plan as part of the SDPR. c) Since 2000 when the District Plan become operative, the following relevant New Zealand acoustic standards have been released; NZS 6801:2008 Acoustics Measurement of Environmental Sound NZS 6802:2008 Acoustics Environmental Noise NZS 6806:2010 Acoustics Road Traffic Noise New and Altered Roads NZS 6808:2010 Acoustics Wind Farm Noise 1.17 The proposed changes to Section 6.2 Noise as a result of PC22C are; Section 6.2 Noise is updated to reflect other changes to the Plan made as part of the SDPR. New information in Section 6.2 explains: o The application of New Zealand standards. o How the noise control rules in the Plan have been developed. o How noise is measured in rural areas. Updated noise standards for the Fringe Business and Flood Protection Zone. PPC22D - Subdivision (Section 7) 1.18 The purpose of the review of the Subdivision component of PC22D is to ensure that policy direction is appropriately aligned with the outcomes of the SDPR, and that the rules and 11

12 methods can be implemented in a straightforward manner and consistently over the life of the Plan. PC22D also provides an opportunity to rationalise parts of Section 7 of the Plan where there is duplication Large parts of the Section 7 have already been partially or completely reviewed as part of the SDPR process. These include critical components such as Rural (PC15A), Residential, Flood Protection (PC15D) and North East Industrial Zone (NEIZ) (PC15E). The components that have not been reviewed include Business, Institutional, Airport, Recreation, Caccia Birch and Race Training. Discussions with Council s regulatory team indicate these components continue to be fit for purpose with little evidence indicating that the Plan needs to address resource management issues in addition to those already set out in the Plan. The focus of this Plan Change, then, is a technical tidy up to enhance Plan usability and align with the overall approach of the SDPR. Areas of focus are: A high-level review of objectives and policies to ensure alignment, where required, with amendments made to associated land use provisions through the SDPR; Consolidation of the multiple non-notification provisions listed in multiple sections into one notification provision in the All Zones section, similar to the approach of other SDPR plan changes; A review of the technical robustness of the restricted discretionary rules, particularly relating to essential services; Consolidation of the multiple references in each section to restricted discretionary rules relating to any subdivision seeking access to a State Highway or a Limited Access Road into one rule under the All Zones section; Review Napier Road Industrial Area to ensure the provisions are fit for purpose; Review Rule and associated non-complying Rule (1), subdivision within the Napier Road Industrial Precinct; and Review of the matters of discretion relating to flood protection Recent amendments to the RMA, that now provide for subdivision as a permitted unless expressly restricted by rules in the District Plan or a national environmental standard, also means that a review of the Subdivision Section of the Plan is warranted. PPC22E - Transportation (Section 20) 1.21 The Land Transport section has been subject to some amendment during the course of the SDPR, as a consequence of other Plan Changes. However, it has not undergone a comprehensive, focused review since Since the Plan s adoption, national, regional and local land transport policy has focused on encouraging and providing for alternative modes of transport, such as cycling and walking, and ensuring that land transport development and land use development is integrated and coordinated. This focus can be seen in other parts of the Plan that have been reviewed, with the introduction of more policies and performance standards seeking to ensure that built development and subdivision activity throughout the City respects 12

13 and provides for all users of the land transport system. This approach also seeks to ensure that the land transport system and network makes a positive contribution to amenity values and to the health and safety of the community In addition to this shift in the strategic focus, technical standards for the provision of access and parking have undergone reform and the development of best practice since the Plan became operative. PC22E provides an opportunity to ensure that performance standards for access, parking and loading reflect best practice and results in environmental outcomes that are consistent with the City-Wide objectives and the anticipated outcomes for the Zone sections of the Plan The approach to this review is to ensure the land transportation section reflects and is consistent with the outcomes of the SDPR; and to develop a Plan section that is easy-to-navigate and straightforward to interpret and apply. Consequently, PC22E proposes a number of structural and formatting changes to Section 20, as well as introducing a new suite of objectives and policies and performance standards to recognise and reflect modern attitudes and aspirations for land transportation in the City. The result is a Plan Section which is similar to other land transport plan sections of neighbouring District Plans in terms of style and format, and contains objectives, policies and methods that are appropriately aligned with the overall direction of the SDPR PC22E is one of a series of plan changes of the SDPR. The Transport Section of the Plan has been partially reviewed as a consequence of other plan changes, namely; Plan Change 15 which involved a comprehensive review of the land use and subdivision provisions for the Rural Zone; Plan Change 20A: Residential Zone and Residential Subdivision, Plan Change 20B: Winchester Street Residential Area, Ashhurst, and a Variation to Plan Change 15A-H; Plan Change 21, which is a review of the current planning rules for parks, reserves, some watercourses, the Central Energy Trust Arena, and the Awapuni Racecourse and associated race training facilities on Te Wanaka Road. Plan Change 1: Review of the Inner and Outer Business Zones 1.25 An effort has been made to avoid relitigating what has been reviewed through the first schedule process as part of other SDPR plan changes. PPC22F - Natural Hazards (Section 22) 1.26 The purpose of the review of the Subdivision component of PC22F is to ensure that the Plan reflects the policy direction provided by the One Plan as well as additional technical information and guidelines have been developed on seismic and slope instability hazards post Plan Change 15D (PC 15D). The introduction of this new information has prompted a review of the wider natural hazards provisions in the Plan to ensure that they are still the most efficient and effective way of meeting the purpose of the Act. 13

14 1.27 PC 15D was notified on 29 January 2015 with decisions notified on 1 September PC 15D added to the Plan additional Issues, Objectives, Polices and Rules relating specifically to flood hazards in the City. The planning maps were also revised to show the updated flood hazard information supplied by Horizons Regional Council. PC15D was developed in response to new flood hazard information that was developed and to ensure consistency with the recently adopted Horizons One Plan. The focus of PC 22D is to examine and understand the wider hazard landscape in the City, considering how these natural hazards are best managed through the Plan. The review process has not included consideration of flood hazard as this has been dealt with through PC15D. There is also an underlying desire not to amend provisions that were part of the wider PC15 process and relitigate what has been reviewed through the first schedule process. However, certain sections of the Plan such as the Rural Zone contain minor amendments to recognise new knowledge regarding wildfire The components of PPC22D are: Review and revision of those parts of Chapter 22 Natural Hazards, relating to liquification, land slippage, and wildfire hazards. The introduction of updated information about liquefaction, land slippage and wildfire hazard within the City. The addition of new policies and rules in Section 6.3 Earthworks and Section 7 Subdivision requiring consideration of risks posed by natural hazards. New requirements to consider natural hazards when land is subdivided in rural areas. New requirements to consider the wildfire risk when establishing new plantation forests Recent amendments to the RMA, have resulted in changes to the definition of natural hazards as well as a new matter of importance being added to Section 6 referring to the management of significant risks from natural hazards. Additional changes to Section 106 of the Act mean that a consent authority will now also be able to act under section 106 if it considers that there is a significant risk to the subdivision or community from natural hazards. PPPC22G - Miscellaneous (Cultural and Natural Heritage and Local Business Zone) (Sections 17 and 11) 1.30 PPPC22G seeks to update the District Plan classification of two specific sites, being 28 Ranfurly Street, and 123A Botanical Avenue The House 28 Ranfurly Street was included in Appendix 17A: Schedule of Buildings and Objects of Cultural Heritage Value (Category 2). The building suffered considerable fire damage in two events (dated June 26 and August ). A resource consent for demolition of the building was granted 8 February The Schedule within Section 17 is now required to be updated to remove this listing PPC22G seeks to correct the zoning of 123a Botanical Road (Lot 2 DP 29583) from Residential Zone to Local Business Zone in line with the adjacent zone boundaries. 14

15 Plan Change Preparation Chronology The following table is a chronology of the key decisions and record of consultation on PPC15A Rural (General Issues). Consultation on Draft Plan Change 22A-G [Meeting with Iwi representatives from Te Rangimarie Trustees, Tanenuiarangi Manawatu Incorporated and Ngati Hineaute Hapu Authority on Thursday 12 October 2017] Clause 3 Consultation copies of Draft Plan Change sent to Clause 3 parties [15 November 2017] Council s Planning and Policy Committee: authorise public consultation on Proposed Plan Change 22A-G [7 February 2018] Clause 5 Notification Proposed Plan Change notified for submissions in accordance with Cl 5 [12 April 2018] Clause 7 Notice of Submission Public notice of the availability of a summary of decisions requested by persons making submission to PC22A-G [27 June 2018] Structure of this S42A Report 2.1 For efficiency and in accordance with Clause 10(3) of the First Schedule of the RMA, the following evaluation has been undertaken on both an issues and provisions-based approach, as opposed to a submission by submission approach. This analysis is provided for each component of PC22A- G. 2.2 The evaluations provided should be read in conjunction with the summaries of submissions and the submissions themselves. 2.3 Track changes to the provisions as a consequence of recommendations are included in the body of the report and also in the provisions provided in Appendix 4. 15

16 1. Statutory Considerations 1.1 Before a plan change request can be incorporated into a District Plan it must fulfil a number of statutory requirements set down in the Resource Management Act, including: a) Part II, comprising Section 5, Purpose and Principles of the Act; Section 6, Matters of National Importance; Section 7, Other Matters; and Section 8, Treaty of Waitangi; b) Section 31, Functions of Territorial Authorities; c) Section 32, Duty to consider alternatives, assess benefits and costs; d) Section 74, Matters to be considered by territorial authorities; and e) Section 75, Contents of district plans. 1.2 The statutory requirements under the RMA for each aspect of the Plan Change have been summarised in the s32 Reports, and so will not be repeated here. Analysis of the degree to which PC22A-G is consistent with the relevant provisions listed above is undertaken within the body of the report and in the concluding statements. 1.3 The purpose of this assessment is to determine whether the provisions of PC22A-G should be confirmed, amended or deleted, after consideration of the alternative provisions sought in submissions. 2. Overview of Submissions 2.1. PC22A-G was notified on the 12 th April Submissions were received from 35 original submitters, resulting in 487 individual submission points. Nine further submissions were received, resulting in 53 individual further submission points. 16

17 3. General Observations Matters out of Scope of PC22A-G 3.1 A number of submissions were received are considered to be outside the scope of PC22A-G and as such will not be responded to in detail within this S42A report. Table 1 below outlines these submissions, and the reasons that each submission fall outside the scope of the Plan Change. It is noted that the issue(s) raised in each submission were not assessed in the Section 32 report or by any of the supporting technical reports. In most cases the submission point has been assessed as part of another plan change associated with the SDPR. TABLE 1: OUT OF SCOPE SUBMISSION POINTS Submission Number Submitter Submission Reasons that the submission is considered out of scope. 029/002 Commbuild Property Limited Oppose Rule The Airport Zone and R do not form part of PC22A-G. The Airport Zone provisions were reviewed within PC15H. S2/005 David Parham Oppose in part R and Map 13.1 The Airport Zone and R and Map 13.1 do not form part of PC22A-G. The Airport Zone provisions were reviewed within PC15H. S3/003 and S3/001 David Parham Oppose in part Figure 13.1 Airport Protection The Airport Zone and Figure 13.1 do not form part of PC22A- G. The Airport Zone provisions were reviewed within PC15H. S2/002 David Parham Oppose in part Map 13.2 Runway End Protection The Airport Zone and Map 13.2 do not form part of PC22A-G. The Airport Zone provisions were reviewed within PC15H. S2/004 David Parham Oppose in part Planning Maps 6-16 The Airport Zone, Noise Contours and the Planning Maps do not form part of PC22A-G. The Airport Zone provisions were reviewed within PC15H. S19/009 Heritage New Zealand Support in part Resource Management Issues for Earthworks. The provisions within Section 6.3- Earthworks do not form part of PC22A-G. The changes 17

18 Submission Number Submitter Submission Reasons that the submission is considered out of scope. Considers that should be extended to to Section 6.3 form part of PC22D Natural Hazards only. include effects on Heritage. S19/010 Heritage New Zealand Support in part Policy 1.2. Considers that Policy 1.2 should be extended to include effects on Heritage. The provisions within Section 6.3- Earthworks do not form part of PC22A-G. The changes to Section 6.3 form part of PC22D Natural Hazards only. S28/079 Heritage Estates Limited Oppose all changes to Section 6.3. The provisions within Section 6.3 Earthworks do not form part of PC22A-G. The changes to Section 6.3 form part of PC22D Natural Hazards only. S19/011 Heritage New Zealand Support in part Methods but request another Method to read; Heritage New Zealand Pauhere The provisions within Section 6.3 Earthworks do not form part of PC22A-G. The changes to Section 6.3 form part of PC22D Natural Hazards only. Taonga Act S19/012 Heritage New Zealand Support in part R Permitted Activities for Earthworks, however request amendment to The provisions within Section 6.3 Earthworks do not form part of PC22A-G. The changes to Section 6.3 form part of PC22D Natural Hazards only. explanation to discuss heritage values. S28/080 Heritage Estates Limited Oppose all changes to Section Exclusions from Earthworks R The provisions within Section 6.3 Earthworks do not form part of PC22A-G. The changes to Section 6.3 form part of PC22D Natural Hazards only. FS3/006 First Gas Supports S13/008 Powerco which seeks to retain as notified Issue 3 in Section 7 Section 8(2) of Schedule 1 of the RMA is quite clear that a further submission given under subclause (1) or (1A) must be 18

19 Submission Number Submitter Submission Reasons that the submission is considered out of scope. Subdivision. As part of its FS, FG seeks the inclusion of a new rule to manage subdivision of land containing a gas pipeline. (Note: limited to a matter in support of or in opposition to the relevant submission made under clause 6 or 6A. In this instance, FG s request is beyond the scope of a further submission. However, a further submission is limited to a matter in support of, or opposition to, an original submission. It cannot introduce a new provision) S19/014 Heritage New Zealand Support in Part R but request that activity is lifted from a controlled activity to a restricted discretionary activity. The provisions within Section 17 - Cultural and Natural Heritage not form part of PC22A-G. The changes to Section 17 form part of PPC22G Miscellaneous involves only the removal of 28 Ranfurly Street from the Heritage Schedule not a wider review of Section 17 of the Plan. S19/015 Heritage New Oppose R The The provisions within Section and Zealand relocation of buildings 17 - Cultural and Natural S19/016 and objects should be Heritage not form part of discouraged by PC22A-G. The changes to categorising them a Section 17 are a result of more stringent PPC22G Miscellaneous and Discretionary Activity. only involves the removal of 28 Submit that Ranfurly Street from the Relocation of a Heritage Schedule not a wider Category 2 Scheduled review of Section 17 of the building is provided for Plan. as a discretionary activity within R

20 Submission Number Submitter Submission Reasons that the submission is considered out of scope. S19/020 Heritage New Zealand Request inclusion of Awapuni Medical Corps Memorial in the District Plan Schedule as a Category 1 object. The provisions within Section 17 - Cultural and Natural Heritage not form part of PC22A-G. The changes to Section 17 form part of PC22A Information Requirements and the removal of 28 Ranfurly Street from the Heritage Schedule. S19/019 Heritage New Zealand Request inclusion of Te Rau Te Aroha Maori Battalion Hall in the District Plan Schedule as a Category 1 building. The Council s Heritage Officer Matthew McKay has advised that the Council will propose the request by Heritage New Zealand within a future plan change. The provisions within Section 17 - Cultural and Natural Heritage not form part of PC22A-G. The changes to Section 17 form part of PPC22G Information Requirements and the removal of 28 Ranfurly Street from the Heritage Schedule. S19/017 Heritage New Zealand Oppose Section 17 Cultural and Natural Heritage. The submitter requests the introduction of a new non-complying activity The Council s Heritage Officer Matthew McKay has advised that the Council will propose the request by Heritage New Zealand within a future plan change. The provisions within Section 17 - Cultural and Natural Heritage not form part of PPC22G. The changes to Section 17 form part of PPC22G Information 20

21 Submission Number Submitter Submission Reasons that the submission is considered out of scope. for activities that would result in irreversible loss of cultural Requirements and the removal of 28 Ranfurly Street from the Heritage Schedule. heritage. S17/010 Malcom J Frith Oppose in part Section 17 Cultural and Natural Heritage. Would like to see plan change include areas such as Tweed Street in Roslyn protected as a heritage street. The provisions within Section 17 - Cultural and Natural Heritage not form part of PC22A-G. The changes to Section 17 form part of PPC22G Information Requirements and the removal of 28 Ranfurly Street from the Heritage Schedule. S17/009 Malcom J Frith Oppose in part Section 17 Cultural and Natural Heritage. Submits that there should be an allowance made for conversion of commercial to residential, where The provisions within Section 17 - Cultural and Natural Heritage not form part of PC22A-G. The changes to Section 17 form part of PPC22G Information Requirements and the removal of 28 Ranfurly Street from the Heritage Schedule. commercial operation is no longer needed. S17/007 Malcom J Frith Oppose in part Section 17 Cultural and Natural Heritage. Request that the Plan offers further protection to all heritage buildings. The provisions within Section 17 - Cultural and Natural Heritage not form part of PC22A-G. The changes to Section 17 form part of PPC22G Information Requirements and the removal of 28 Ranfurly Street from the Heritage Schedule. S17/006 Malcom J Frith Supports Section 17 Cultural and Natural Heritage. No decision requested. The provisions within Section 17 - Cultural and Natural Heritage not form part of PC22A-G. The changes to Section 17 form part of 21

22 Submission Number Submitter Submission Reasons that the submission is considered out of scope. PPC22G Information Requirements and the removal of 28 Ranfurly Street from the Heritage Schedule. 3.2 As the above submissions are considered to be out of scope. The issues and provisions they relate to were not considered in the s32 evaluation reports. they require no further analysis within this S42A document. Recommendations 3.3 That the submissions contained within Table 1 above are rejected. Submissions relating to All Sections of PC22A-G 3.4 Several submissions received cannot be clearly categorised at as falling within one of the parts of PC22A-G. For these reasons these submissions will be addressed within this section of the report. Those submissions that are attributable to one of the parts PC22A-G, will be specifically analysed within the applicable section of this report. Submissions relating to the entire Plan Change Summary of Submissions Received 3.5 Submissions from Heritage Estates Limited (S28/004) and Proarch Consultants (S31/003) oppose the Plan Change in its entirety. The submitters state that the RLAA (Resource Legislation Amendment Act) 2017 requires the evaluation (section 32) report to show how iwi and hapū planning documents have been taken into account in the drafting of the Plan amendments for the inclusion of s 6(g) the protection of protected customary rights. The submitter considers that the transparency and fairness of the procedure for the preparation of material notified for PC22A-G is opposed to the principles of natural justice. The submitter states that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 27 (1) provides that every person to have the right to the observance of the principles of natural justice by a public authority, and every person whose rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law have been affected by a determination of any tribunal or other public authority has the right to apply, in accordance with law, for judicial review of that determination, s 27 (2). They consider that this process appears contrary to RMA, Schedule 1, Part 3, s 32, s 34, and the requirements under Schedule Commbuild Property Limited (S29/001) consider PC22A-G is contrary to sustainable management, will significantly impact the ability of people and communities to provide for their wellbeing, and will not enable the efficient use and development of the land assets and resources of Palmerston North. They seek that PC22A-G is amended to be in accordance within the purposes and principles of the RMA and be appropriate in terms of s32 of the Act. They also 22

23 seek that the potential adverse effects from activities allowed by PC22A-G will have been addressed appropriately. Analysis 3.7 Within the s32 reports prepared for PC22A-G, within each of the reports there is a section that outlines the degree of impact on, or interest from iwi/maori. As outlined within the s32 reports, Iwi were involved in pre-consultation of the proposed amendments to the Plan from PC22A-G in a meeting within PNCC officers on the 12 th October PNCC have no iwi or hapū planning documents in place at present. 3.9 I do not consider that the PC22A-G process has had an absence of transparency and/or fairness, and I do not consider that the process is contrary to the principles of natural justice In response to the submission by Commbuild Property, s32 evaluation reports have been prepared for, and notified for all elements of PC22A-G. The submitter within their submission has stated generally that PC22A-G is inconsistent with Part 2 of the Act, and that the Council has not discharged its duty under section 32 of the Act. The s32 reports provide a detailed analysis of how the changes propose seek to achieve the purpose of the Act. Without specific examples being provided by the submitter of where they consider that the Plan Change falls short of the obligations under the Act, I am unable to provide further analysis of this submission. I note that the submitter has provided similar submissions in response to specific provisions within the Plan Change, and these will be addressed within the relevant section of this report. Recommendations 3.11 For the reasons outlined above I recommend that the submissions of Heritage Estates Limited (S28/004), Proarch Consultants (S31/003) and Commbuild Property Limited (S29/001) are rejected. Notification of the Plan Change Summary of Submissions Received and Analysis 3.12 Submissions from Proarch Consultants (S31/001), Mountain Production (S27/031) and Heritage Estates (S28/002) request that the PC22A-G Plan Change notification process is set aside and that PC22A-G is re-notified. They submit that the re-notification should occur with all tracked changes on the current Operative District Plan text updated by previous plan changes and consent orders, so that the submitters can understand the impacts of the changes on the Plan as a whole rather than in the fragmented manner they consider has been presented Heritage Estates (S28/001) submit that they reject the Stage 1 notification process and that it should be incorporated with the Stage 2 process as a single transparent process. The submitter also rejects the incorporation of standards by reference within the Plan. 23

24 Analysis 3.14 I would firstly like to acknowledge and recognise that there are difficulties in the notification of sectional plan reviews. These difficulties are primarily because the changes as part of each sectional review relate only to the parts of the Plan that have been reviewed, and any consequential referencing amendments that need to be made across the remainder of the Plan In particular, PC22A-G has reviewed a number of sections across the Plan, of which have numerous cross-referencing links within the Plan. For example, the Signs, Noise and Transport provisions that are crossed reference in almost every section of the Plan have been reviewed. Changes to provisions numbering have required consequential amendments within other sections. This is unlike other sectional reviews that have tended to focus on one section of the Plan, with limited overlap or cross reference within other sections of the Plan For this reason, undertaking a cost/benefit analysis, the Council determined that notification of the entire Operative Plan, with all changes from all previous plan changes and consent orders, would be likely to cause confusion to submitters as to the nature of the amendments proposed by PC22A-G. All sectional reviews that have been undertaken, and made operative, now form part of the Operative Plan which is provided on the Council s website. The amendments proposed to the Plan through PC22A-G are to the most recent operative version of the Plan. It is acknowledged that there will be further changes to the Plan that arise from PC15 and PC20A and B appeals, PC21 and PC23, and that these changes will be confirmed within the Plan text and maps once operative To improve the ability to determine the proposed changes of PC22A-G and to avoid the need to produce the whole text of the Operative Plan or notification, it was determined that notification of the full Sections of the Plan that were reviewed as part of PC22A-G, being Section, 1,5,6,7, 20, 22, and 26 was appropriate given the larger number of changes to these Sections proposed. Where PC22A-G resulted in consequential changes, i.e. to Section 4 Definitions, or Zone chapters where reference was made to the provisions for Nosie, Signs and Transport then it was determined that only the parts of these sections where there was a change would be notified. This was to reduce the amount of material in the notification process and to assist with scope While I appreciate the submission, I do not consider that the method of notification has resulted in inaccurate, incomplete notification of the proposed changes to the Plan from PC22A-G Turning to the submission of Heritage Estates (S28/001) the notification of the Plan Change has not been undertaken in two stages. Clause 34, Schedule 1 of the RMA requires that the Council, before publicly notifying a proposed plan change, must make copies of material to be incorporated by reference available for inspection for a reasonable period at the council offices, make copies of the material available for purchase, and give public notice stating that the material is available for inspection and available for purchase. This public notification occurred on the 21 st March 2018 and is the notification that the submitter is referring to within their 24

25 submission as Stage 1 notification. This notification is required prior to the notification of the Plan Change which occurred 4 th April The Stage 1 Notification of the Plan Change as referred to by the submitters was undertaken in accordance with the requirements of Clause 31, Schedule 1 of the RMA. Recommendation 3.21 For these reasons, I recommend that the submissions of Proarch Consultants (S31/001), Mountain Production (S27/031) and Heritage Estates (S28/001 and S28/002) are rejected. Bolded Definitions Summary of Submissions Received and Analysis 3.22 Submissions from Heritage Estates Limited (S28/049, S28/005), Mountain Productions (S27/014) and Proarch Consultants (S31/004) request that words defined within Section 4 Definitions of the Plan are consistently bolded throughout the Plan. Analysis 3.23 It is acknowledged that the bolding of words defined in Section 4 throughout the Plan would enable Plan Users to clearly associate those words that have a definition associated As the Operative Plan has been reviewed throughout the SDPR (SDPR) process, amendments to the Plan have occurred over a number of years, and this approach has not been taken at this time within the Plan In speaking with the Council s Policy Planner, Mr Jonathan Fergusson-Pye, Mr Ferguson Pye agrees with the merit in this approach and has advised that it is in fact something that the Council is looking at implementing as part of the E-Plan. The Council is now required to by central government to provide an E-Plan online, and as part of this process is considering bolding definitions to enable linking to relevant definitions. It is noted that Council is currently in the process of engaging an E-Plan service provider It is considered that the relief sought by this submission can be achieved through the implementation of the E-Plan process. Recommendations 3.27 I recommend that the submissions of Heritage Estates Limited (S28/049, S28/005), Mountain Productions (S27/014) and Proarch Consultants (S31/004) are accepted in part I recommend that no changes are proposed to the text of the District Plan, but during the implementation of the E-Plan, the Council seeks to bold words within the Plan that are contained within Section 4 Definitions. 25

26 Consequential Amendments Summary of Submissions Received and Analysis 3.29 Submissions received from Heritage Estates (S28/108), Dobbin Investments Limited (S30/001 and S30/002) and Commbuild Property Limited (S29/022) oppose all consequential amendments to the Plan within Section 12 Industrial Zone and Section 19 - Institutional Zone A submission was also received from Heritage Estates (S28/106, S28/110, S28/113) supporting the consequential amendments to Section 14 Hazardous Substances, Section 21- Race Training Zone and Section 16 Caccia Birch Zone as notified The consequential amendments to the Plan are the result of changes to the referencing of other Sections of the Plan that have been amended by PC22A-G, namely reference to the relevant Noise, Signs and Transport provisions. Without these amendments, a cross reference to the wrong section of the Plan would occur. This would be inefficient and ineffective to Plan Users. Recommendations 3.32 For the reasons outlined above I recommend; The submissions of Heritage Estates (S28/108), Dobbin Investments Limited (S30/001 and S30/002) and Commbuild Property Limited (S29/022) are rejected. The submissions of Heritage Estates (S28/106, S28/110, S28/113) are accepted. Sections 12 Industrial Zone, Section 14 Hazardous Substances, Section 16 Caccia Birch Zone, Section 19 - Institutional Zone and Section 21- Race Training Zone are retained as notified. 26

27 4. PPC22A Introduction, Information Requirements and Monitoring (Sections 1, 5 and 25) Issues Raised in Submissions on Introduction, Information Requirements and Monitoring individual submission points in total on the proposed PC22A-G. have been received on PPC22A. The topics raised in submissions are as follows: Introduction Information Requirements Monitoring Topic One Introduction 4.2 Submissions were received on the following sections within Section 1 - Introduction Sectional District Plan Review City and History Purpose and Principles of RMA Contents of District Plans Cross Boundary Issues Submissions in support Sectional District Plan Review Summary of Submissions Received and Analysis 4.3 Proarch Consultants Limited (S31/018) and Heritage Estates (S28/019) submit that proposed PC22A-G is the last SDPR and should be finite. The submitter seeks amendments to Section 1.6 of the Plan to remove reference to the ongoing sectional review of the Plan and confirm completion of the sectional review process. 4.4 I concur with the submitter that given that PC22 is the final Plan Change as part of the SDPR, that the wording of Section 1.6 should be revised to reflect this. The submitter has proposed wording to Section 1.6 which I consider in the main to be appropriate, with minor amendments. I therefore recommend that the submission is accepted in part. Recommendations 4.5 I recommend that; Section 1.6 is amended to read; 27