Chapter 4 - Settlements

Transcription

1 Chapter 4 - Settlements Introduction 1. Chapter 4 deals with the Settlements in the Hurunui district and sets out the rules for those areas identified as being within a Settlement. These areas were previously identified in the ODP as the Urban Zone but in the PDP are referred to as Settlements. Settlement areas are divided into Residential, Business, Industrial and Open Space zones. The policy framework has an overarching objective and general policies for all Settlement areas, as well as policies for each zone. There are also specific objectives and policies for Hanmer Springs, Amberley, Mt Lyford and Buxton Valley. 2. This s42a report covers submission points for the Settlements chapter, relevant definitions and some miscellaneous points that are most appropriate to the context of settlements as well as requests for zoning and settlement boundary changes. 3. Chapter 3 deals with the Rural zone. There are a number of submissions that seek changes to both the Rural and Settlements chapters and these are assessed in the Rural s42a report in relation to the Rural Chapter. I have reviewed the analysis of those submissions and, except where expanded on below, I consider that the analysis and recommendations apply equally to the Settlements provisions and therefore I have not assessed the same matter in this report: - Temporary Military Training Activities and noise, including helicopter noise (Defence); - Requiring Traffic Management Plans for events that occur at schools (MoE); - Relocatable buildings (House Movers); - Remote signage (various submitters and further submitters). For clarification, I note that the submissions predominantly relate to the Rural Zone signage rules, apart from some minor corrections sought in relation to the Settlements signage rules. However the wider discussion is relevant to the Settlements chapter as a business with remote signage would usually be located within a settlement. 4. Some submission points that were made in relation to this Chapter of the PDP have been addressed in other reports and are therefore not discussed in this report. These include: - Any submissions on rules relating to energy activities, which are addressed in the s42a Report on Chapter 7 Energy. - Any submission points relating to providing corridor protection for MainPower s electricity distribution network, which are addressed in the s42a Report on Chapter 9 Utilities. - Submission points made by Transpower that relate to various rules in the Settlements chapter, which are addressed in the s42a Report on Chapter 9 Utilities. - Submission points by KiwiRail that are consequential to their request to include the rail network within the definition of utilities which is addressed in the s42a Report on Chapter 9 Utilities. 1

2 Context of District Plan Review 5. During the early stages of the District Plan Review process which started in 2011 Council determined that the review process would not include a review of the boundaries of the settlements or a review of the current zoning of land. The following is taken from the s32 report for the Settlements chapter: The issue as to whether Council would undertake a review of the operative settlement provisions was determined at the start of the district plan review. It was decided that the provisions were deemed to be effective and with ample urban zoned land available to meet the projected population growth trends, it did not need to be reviewed during this District Plan review. 6. An analysis of population trends for Hurunui District was undertaken by Opus in 2014 (refer to References/ Reports section of this report). This provided a conservative estimate that most settlements will stay the same or decline, apart from Amberley and Hanmer Springs which are likely to experience some growth. The report concluded that there is already sufficient land available in these two settlements to accommodate anticipated population growth. Council is aware that there is now a general need to examine the boundaries of the other settlements to assess if the current zoning is still appropriate and allows for future growth. At various times the possibility of doing this under a plan change or variation to the PDP has been discussed, and it has been mooted at various times that the first plan change following the PDP becoming operative could include an analysis of the boundaries and zonings of some of the settlements. It would still need to be determined by Council if such plan changes were to proceed. This information is provided to give contextual information to the Hearings Panel of Council s current rationale on this wider issue. Exceptions to changing Settlement boundaries 7. There are two locations where exceptions have been made and a Settlement boundary has been extended. The first one is the Woodbank (South) Outline Development Zone land. This originated as a private plan change request in February MacQuarrie Holdings Limited requested an area of land on the western side of State Highway 7A, south of Woodbank Road, be re-zoned from Rural to Residential with subsequent development to be guided by an outline development plan. The proposal included extending the settlement boundary of Hanmer Springs to include this land. At the December Council meeting it was resolved that the proposed plan change would be included in the PDP process. This is referred to as the MacQuarrie ODZ area on Map I, and thus the settlement boundary of Hanmer Springs is proposed to be extended. 8. The other site is located at 175P Carters Road, Amberley (referred to as the Harrison land). Under the ODP this was zoned Rural and was excluded from the settlement boundary of Amberley. During Councillor Workshops under the PDP process, it was decided that the land would be re-zoned to Residential 1 Deferred and included within the settlement boundary of Amberley. As I explain further later in this report, the zoning was inadvertently left off the Planning Maps when the PDP was notified, but was intended to be included. 2

3 Plan Changes under the ODP 9. Since the current ODP became operative in 2003 there have been 33 plan changes. The plan changes that relate to Settlements are as follows: Plan Change number PC10 PC11 PC13 PC14 PC15 PC16 PC21 PC24 PC25 Details Amberley Residential Rezoning rezoned approximately 6.6ha of land on the outskirts of the township from Rural Residential to Residential. Claverley Comprehensive Development Zone recognised the existing coastal settlement of Claverley and allowed for a small expansion. Amberley examined the Amberley urban boundary and introduced new objectives, policies and rules. It enlarged the Amberley Business Zone and identified areas for potential future residential and industrial development. Hanmer Springs Residential Zone allowed for an extension to the Hanmer Springs Management Area to extend the Residential Management Area. Buxton Valley Management Area rezoned the land within the Buxton Valley catchment to an Environment of Special Concern with specific provisions to enable the establishment of 83 residential lots with grazing, conservation and recreation land uses. Woodbank (River Edge) Zone, Hanmer Springs rezoned an area of land from General Management (Hanmer Basin) to Residential. Residential 1 (Waipara) Zone rezoned approximately 13ha of General Management land at 274 Glenmark Drive, Waipara to Residential zoning, creating the potential for an estimated residential allotments. St James Estate, Hanmer Springs rezoned approximately 25.4ha of General Management land, providing for a mix of residential zoning ranging from 350m2 1000m2, and included open space areas, with future development guided by an Outline Development Plan. Amberley Business and Industrial Zones introduced a new Business 1 (town centre) zone at Amberley with associated policies and rules, and rezoned land at Grays Road to Industrial Zone. Operative date 15 October October January August September June March May December These plan changes have established various settlement-specific zones and related provisions. Statutory context Chapter Section 7 of the RMA is especially relevant for Chapter 4 because this requires that particular regard be given to the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values. A number of submissions received on this Chapter are related to general amenity provisions. 12. Chapter 5 of the CRPS deals with land use and infrastructure. Policy encourages sustainable development patterns that ensure that urban growth and limited rural residential development occurs in a form that concentrates, or is attached to, existing urban areas and promotes a coordinated pattern of development. Policy encourages the enabling of development, including regionally significant infrastructure, which avoids or mitigates natural hazards and reverse sensitivity effects and integrates with infrastructure and transport networks. 3

4 Key Issues for Resolution 13. Submissions were received on all parts of the Settlements chapter, covering the introduction, objectives, policies, rules for all zones and the assessment criteria. The key issues for resolution are: - whether natural hazards can be mitigated rather than avoided; and ensuring consistency between Chapters 4 and 15: - managing reverse sensitivity with regard to infrastructure; - broadening the open space policies. - whether Papakāinga housing should be introduced at policy level (but without any areas being zoned for such housing); - whether various rules within the Settlements chapter are appropriate for protecting amenity, including density provisions; - whether various rules within the Settlements chapter achieve technical requirements. 14. A number of requests were also made for zoning changes. These requests range from re-zoning large pieces of land capable of accommodating multi-lot development to re-zoning individual sites. 15. Further submissions have been referenced relatively sparingly throughout the Section 42A report for Settlements. Specific references are generally only made when the further submission only relates to one original submitter or if the reasoning in the further submissions is relevant. Planning Assessment 16. The planning assessment is split into two sections the first analyses individual provisions (or groups of provisions) by topic. This section covers submission points made in relation to the introduction, objectives, policies, rules and assessment criteria for the Settlements Chapter, as well as definitions and miscellaneous points that are most relevant to the Settlements Chapter. Due to the nature of the submissions, the discussion on the objective and policy framework has generally separated out from the discussion on the rule framework. For the rule framework discussion, this generally splits into two categories: amenity and density considerations; and technical matters. 17. The second section analyses the requests for zoning and boundary changes related to settlements. As these requests generally relate to a specific area or site, these are generally discussed individually although have been grouped by settlement. Assessment of submission points related to the introduction, objectives and policies: Provision Policy Policy 4.1 provides specific direction with regard to identifying new areas for residential, business and industrial development, thus providing for the present and future development needs of the district: 4

5 Policy 4.1 To identify areas for residential, business and industrial development which provide for the present and future urban development needs of the district, provided that: (i) Those areas can be served with appropriate levels of infrastructure (including stormwater, water and sewerage); (ii) Access to those areas does not adversely affect the safety and efficiency of the road or rail networks; (iii) Any potential reverse-sensitivity effects with other land uses, including infrastructure, major roads, the rail network and business and industrial activities are avoided or mitigated; (iv) Potential adverse effects on the amenity values of residents in adjoining areas can be avoided, mitigated or remedied; (v) Any potential natural hazards and the potential adverse effects of the storage of hazardous substances or use of contaminated land are avoided; and (vi) To require an Outline Development Plan for all plan changes and substantial developments; and (vii) Consideration is given to avoiding the contamination of community water supply intakes where possible. Submissions and Discussion 19. MoE requests that Policy 4.1 (i) is amended to include consideration of whether residential, business and industrial development would be served by community services as well as by infrastructure, as follows: Those areas can be served with appropriate levels of infrastructure (including stormwater, water and sewerage) and community services; MoE submits that Council should take a wider view in ensuring areas identified for development are served with social infrastructure as well as physical infrastructure, and that inclusion of community services which includes schools in the policy would ensure that in planning for growth that the educational needs of the community are not overlooked. 20. The definition of community services in the PDP is: Community services include educational institutions, places of worship, libraries, hospitals, resthomes, community halls, childcare centres. 21. Of these activities, libraries and community halls are the only services that fall under the remit of Council. The other activities either fall under MoE (educational institutions), the District Health Board (hospitals) or the private sector or community groups (private educational institutions; places of worship; resthomes and childcare centres). The Council has no control over whether the majority of these community services are provided. Likewise, any applicants of large scale residential, business or industrial development whose developments would be assessed against this policy, have no control over when and if these community services are provided. In my view it would therefore not be appropriate to include community services in Policy 4.1 (i). 22. KiwiRail requests that Policy 4.1 (ii) and (iii) are retained, because they specifically refer to reverse sensitivity effects and the safety and efficiency of the rail network, respectively. KiwiRail supports these clauses and wishes to ensure these policy considerations are retained. 5

6 23. NZTA supports the intention and current wording of Policy 4.1 (iii) and requests that reference to their Planning Policy Manual is included in this policy. I agree that reference to this guidance would be useful but I recommend that this is included as a note under the policy, along with an explanation of what NZTA manages. This would be consistent with how NZTA guidance has been referenced in other parts of the PDP. 24. Transpower generally supports Policy (iii) and requests the following change, submitting that it will assist in giving effect to Policies 10 and 11 of the NPSET: Any potential reverse-sensitivity effects with other land uses, including regionally and nationally significant infrastructure, major roads, the rail network and business and industrial activities are avoided or mitigated; 25. I consider that Transpower s requested wording would place weight on reverse sensitivity effects on regionally and nationally significant infrastructure but in doing so would inadvertently remove weight being given to effects on local infrastructure. My understanding is the intention of the policy is to consider the impact on all infrastructure, this being national, regional and local. In my view, the current wording of the policy achieves this; therefore I recommend that Transpower s requested wording is not adopted. 26. MoE submits that natural hazards cannot always be avoided, and that Policy 4.1 (v) is inconsistent with Objective 15.1 in the Natural Hazards chapter which allows for subdivision, use and development of land while avoiding or mitigating the adverse effects of natural hazards. MoE recommends that this is changed to: Any potential natural hazards and the potential adverse effects of the storage of hazardous substances or use of contaminated land are avoided; or mitigated; and 27. The Oil Companies also request that Policy 4.1 (v) is amended. The Oil Companies oppose the policy because it requires the avoidance of adverse effects in relation to natural hazards and hazardous substances, thus setting a zero tolerance level. The Oil Companies submit that this does not allow for reasonable use of hazardous substances or development of contaminated land or land affected by natural hazards. The Oil Companies request the policy is re-drafted to recognise that if risk can be managed to an appropriate level, avoidance is not required. The Oil Companies suggested wording is: (v) Any The potential adverse effects of natural hazards and the potential adverse effects of the storage of hazardous substances or use of contaminated land are avoided or mitigated to appropriately manage risk; and 28. CRC further submitted on this point, supporting the insertion of adverse effects of natural hazards, because it is the adverse effects of the natural hazards that are to be avoided, not the natural hazards themselves. CRC seeks that the remaining wording of Policy 4.1 (v) is retained. 29. The wider issue of avoidance and mitigation is addressed more thoroughly in the s42a report for Chapter 15, but in terms of Policy 4.1 (v) I agree that there is a potential inconsistency with Chapter 15 which does anticipate mitigation may be appropriate in some (but not all) instances. 30. I have discussed the changes sought with Liz White, who is the author of the s42a Report for Chapter 15. She has advised me that while Objective 15.1 does refer to both avoidance and mitigation, the policy direction is more specific about when avoidance is required and when 6

7 mitigation is appropriate. She has concerns that amending the policy as sought by MoE would be inconsistent with Policy 15.1, which directs that new subdivision, use and development in areas identified as being subject to natural hazards is avoided unless these activities meet the criteria specified in the policy. Although one of the criteria (Policy 15.1(6)) does relate to where the activities are in areas zoned for residential, business or industrial development and mitigation works have been undertaken, Mrs White notes that this relates to areas already zoned. Her view is that Policy 4.1 relates to consideration of new zoning and therefore Policy 15.1(6) is not applicable. However, she does note that where the new zoning is proposed outside a high hazard area and meets the other criteria in Policy 15.1, mitigation may be appropriate. Her preference would be to cross-reference Policy 4.1(v) to Chapter 15, rather than retain reference to only avoidance, or to extend it to suggest mitigation is always an option. 31. In relation to the second part of Policy 4.1 (v), i.e. relating to the potential adverse effects of hazardous substances and use of contaminated land, the s42a report for Chapter 18 recommends that the wording in Objective 18, Policy 18.1 and Policy 18.2 is amended to allow for appropriate management to be included when dealing with contaminated land so that a range of options is available. Which sites may be suitable for mitigation rather than avoidance would require a case-by-case assessment and would include an assessment of risk and the proposed use of the site. I therefore agree with the Oil Companies suggested wording regarding mitigating to appropriately manage risk in relation to hazardous substances and contaminated land. 32. I also agree with the Oil Companies and CRC that Policy 4.1 (v) should refer to potential adverse effects of natural hazards rather than potential natural hazards and recommend this is amended. This is because the natural hazards themselves cannot be regulated it is any adverse effects arising from a natural hazard event that the policy is aiming to regulate (as currently worded, the policy requires natural hazards themselves to be avoided). Amending this wording would ensure the correct intention of the policy is adopted, and would also ensure the terminology is consistent with Objective 15.1, which refers to adverse effects of natural hazards. 33. Based on the above, I therefore recommend that Policy 4.1(v) is split into two parts, one relating to natural hazards and amended as recommended by Mrs White, and the other to hazardous substances and contaminated land. 34. CDHB requests that Policy 4.1 (vii) is amended to: Consideration is given to avoiding the c Contamination of community water supply intakes where possible is mitigated. CDHB submits that the current wording of the policy is too broad to be effective, and that use of the term where possible is not useful as it is open to subjective interpretation and dilutes the intention of the policy. 35. I agree that use of the term where possible is subjective. I also consider that phrasing the policy with consideration is given to implies that consideration of the issue is enough to satisfy the policy, whereas I assume that the intention of the policy is for community water supply intakes to be actively managed to avoid contamination and to mitigate if contamination occurs. I recommend that the wording is amended to: Consideration is given to avoiding the c Contamination of community water supply intakes where possible is avoided or mitigated. 7

8 Recommendations 36. Based on the above discussion, I make the following recommendations: Policy 4.5 Provisions Policy 4.1 To identify areas for residential, business and industrial development which provide for the present and future urban development needs of the district, provided that: (i) Those areas can be served with appropriate levels of infrastructure (including stormwater, water and sewerage); (ii) Access to those areas does not adversely affect the safety and efficiency of the road or rail networks; (iii) Any potential reverse-sensitivity effects with other land uses, including infrastructure, major roads, the rail network and business and industrial activities are avoided or mitigated; (iv) Potential adverse effects on the amenity values of residents in adjoining areas can be avoided, mitigated or remedied; (v) Any potential natural hazards and the potential adverse effects of the storage of hazardous substances or use of contaminated land are avoided or mitigated to appropriately manage risk; and (vi) Any potential effects of natural hazards are avoided, or where the exemptions set out in Policy 15.1(1) - (5) apply, are avoided or mitigated; (vii) To require an Outline Development Plan for all plan changes and substantial developments; and (viii) Consideration is given to avoiding the c Contamination of community water supply intakes where possible is avoided or mitigated. Note: The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) is the road controlling authority for the State Highway. Refer to the NZTA Planning Policy Manual, or its successor, for guidance on reverse sensitivity around state highways. 37. Policy 4.5 provides direction on natural hazards in relation to further development of urban areas that are prone to natural hazards: To recognise that some urban areas have been developed in locations subject to natural hazards, especially flooding and coastal erosion, which may be exacerbated by climate change, and to discourage further development or investment of public resources in these areas, particularly seaward of coastal hazard lines. Submissions and Discussion 38. MoE seeks this amendment to Policy 4.5: To recognise that some urban areas have been developed in locations subject to natural hazards, especially flooding and coastal erosion, which may be exacerbated by climate change, and to discourage further development or investment of public resources in these areas, particularly seaward of coastal hazard lines unless natural hazards can be mitigated. 8

9 39. MoE submits that Policy 4.5 directly conflicts with the current wording of Policy 4.1 (v) which uses the term avoid only. 40. I have discussed this with Mrs White who recommends that the changes are rejected. This is because she considers that Policy 4.1 and Policy 4.5 address quite separate matters Policy 4.1 relating to consideration of new settlement area, and Policy 4.5 relating to existing Settlements. As such, she considers that a conflict does not arise between these policies as these two different situations are able to be managed in different ways. In particular, she notes that further development seaward of the coastal hazard line is managed under the Regional Coastal Environment Plan, and as such does not consider it appropriate for this district plan policy to be amended to provide direction relating to this area that may conflict with that document. Recommendations 41. I therefore recommend no change to Policy 4.5. Policies 4.4 and 4.10 Provisions 42. Policy 4.4 gives direction on protecting and enhancing the special character of the tourism and holiday focussed settlements, as follows: To manage subdivision, land development and use in the tourism and holiday focussed settlements such as Hanmer Springs and the coastal settlements in a manner that protects and enhances the special character and environmental qualities of those settlements. 43. Policy 4.10 gives direction on protecting residential amenity where business activities are proposed in residential zones, as follows: To ensure business activities in residential zones are limited in scale and character to protect residential amenity values. Submissions and Discussion 44. Progressives submit that Policy 4.4 is focused on the control or management of development rather than promoting appropriate development in these areas, and requests that the policy is amended to provide greater balance to more effectively achieve the intent of Objective 4, as follows: To provide for and manage subdivision, land development and I agree with this request because I consider use of the term provide for will allow a pro-active approach to be taken with subdivision, land development and use, whereas use of the term manage only could be viewed as a more reactive approach. I recommend the amended wording is adopted as I believe it would improve the reach of Policy 4.4, thus improving the overall achievement of Objective Progressives submit that Policy 4.10 lacks sufficient balance to provide for potential circumstances where business activity may be appropriate in some cases, and recommend this 9

10 is amended to: To ensure business activities in residential zones are of an appropriate limited in scale and character to protect maintain residential amenity values. 47. I recommend that the wording relating to appropriate scale and character is adopted because, in my view, this gives scope for consideration of what is appropriate, in terms of scale and character, to be assessed on a case-by-case basis in the context of the surrounding residential zone. 48. With regard to removing protect and inserting maintain, I note that section 7(c) of the RMA specifies maintenance and enhancement of amenity values. In my opinion, use of the word maintain would be more consistent with the RMA and would also be in keeping with Objective 4 of the PDP which requires character of settlements to be retained. As such, I recommend that the wording is changed to maintain. Recommendations 49. Based on the above discussion, I recommend the following changes: Policy 4.4 To provide for and manage subdivision, land development and use in the tourism and holiday focussed settlements such as Hanmer Springs and the coastal settlements in a manner that protects and enhances the special character and environmental qualities of those settlements. Policy 4.10 To ensure business activities in residential zones are of an appropriate limited in scale and character to protect maintain residential amenity values. Policy 4.20 Provisions 50. Policy 4.20 is one of two policies related to the Open Space Zone and is as follows: To provide for open space zones to meet recreational requirements within urban areas. Submission 51. CDHB supports the Open Space Policies (Policies 4.19 and 4.20) but has requested more detail is added to Policy CDHB submits that the provision for open space and recreational facilities is vital for people s physical and mental health and it is important for the district to provide a range of open space and recreational facilities that will help to meet these needs. CDHB has requested replacing Policy 4.20 with the following: A network of open spaces and recreation facilities that: provides a diversity in the type and size of open spaces and recreational facilities to meet the current and future recreational, cultural, health and wellbeing needs of the community; provides users with a pleasant, accessible and safe environment; enables temporary and multifunctional uses; maintains and enhances amenity values, connectivity and public access, and 10

11 Discussion recognises and provides for Ngāi Tahu s relationship with land and water resources, and reflects their cultural values. 52. In my view, the requested wording put forward by CDHB appears to read more as an objective and I note that the other zones within the Settlements chapter do not have specific objectives. 53. Further to this, in terms of what the requested wording covers I consider that some of the points are not appropriate in a district plan context, because they relate to the Council s role as an asset manager managing reserves and the Council s functions under the Local Government Act, not the Council s functions under the RMA. For example: - provides a diversity in the type and size of open spaces and recreational facilities to meet the current and future recreational, cultural, health and wellbeing needs of the community; - enables temporary and multifunctional uses; - recognises and provides for Ngāi Tahu s relationship with land and water resources, and reflects their cultural values.provides users with a pleasant, accessible and safe environment 54. With regards to the last bullet point above, I do consider that the accessible consideration is appropriate for the district plan context. 55. With regard to what is appropriate for a district plan context, I consider that the point put forward by CDHB regarding maintains and enhances amenity values, connectivity and public access is relevant. As discussed in the previous section, section 7(c) of the RMA specifies maintenance and enhancement of amenity values. In my view, this particular point would be consistent with the RMA. 56. I also note that Policy 10.7 of the ODP is To foster a high level of environmental amenity throughout the District by ensuring there is sufficient open space and an adequate system of reserves. As such, amenity has been considered at the policy level in relation to open space under the current district plan and I am not clear as to why this consideration has been removed. In my view, I think it would be appropriate for amenity to be considered, along with the considerations of connectivity and accessibility. Recommendation 57. Based on the above discussion, I recommend the following changes: To provide for open space zones to meet recreational requirements within urban areas, which maintain and enhance amenity values and provide connectivity and public access. Policy 4.35 Provision 58. Policy 4.35 gives direction on reverse-sensitivity effects in relation to the State Highway, the rail corridor and industrial and business activities: 11

12 To recognise and manage the potential for reverse-sensitivity effects caused by residential and other sensitive activities located in close proximity to SH1, the Main South Island Trunk Line, or industrial or business activities. Submissions and Discussion 59. NZTA requests that reference to the NZTA Planning Policy Manual is added to Policy 4.35 to provide guidance when considering reverse sensitivity around state highways. Transpower further submitted in support of this, additionally requesting that reference is made to regionally and nationally significant infrastructure, similar to their request for Policy 4.1 (iii). As with my recommendation in relation to Policy 4.1, I agree that reference to this guidance would be useful but I recommend that this is included as a note under the policy, along with an explanation of what NZTA manages. This would be consistent with how NZTA guidance has been referenced in other parts of the PDP. As per my recommendation regarding Policy 4.1 (iii), in my view regionally and nationally significant infrastructure should not be referred to in Policy 4.35 and I consider that Transpower s request potentially extends beyond the scope of NZTA s primary submission. 60. KiwiRail requests that Policy 4.35 is amended to correctly refer to the railway line that runs through Hurunui district, as follows: To recognise and manage the potential for reversesensitivity effects caused by residential and other sensitive activities located in close proximity to SH1, the Main North South Island Trunk Line, or industrial or business activities. I recommend that the requested wording change is adopted to be in line with KiwiRail s correct terminology. Recommendation 61. Based on the above discussion, I recommend the following changes: Policy 4.35 To recognise and manage the potential for reverse-sensitivity effects caused by residential and other sensitive activities located in close proximity to SH1, the Main North South Island Trunk Line, or industrial or business activities. Note: The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) is the road controlling authority for the State Highway. Refer to the NZTA Planning Policy Manual, or its successor, for guidance on reverse sensitivity around state highways. New provision for papakāinga housing Provisions 62. Currently, there are no provisions in the PDP relating to papakāinga housing. Submissions 63. CRC requests both an objective and a policy relating to papakāinga development, with the policy wording related to papakāinga housing, marae and ancillary activities on ancestral Maori land, as per Policy in the CRPS. 12

13 64. Te Rūnanga requests a policy that refers to manawhenua settlement, along with an amendment to Policy 4.2 to recognise that provision of a manawhenua settlement is likely to be an exception to the development pattern set out in Policy 4.2. The submission by Te Rūnanga states: The Canterbury Regional Policy Statement includes policy direction for territorial authorities on provision for papakainga development on Ngāi Tahu ancestral land. However the sites of ancestral settlements in the Hurunui District (at Hanmer Springs and at the mouths of the Conway River/Tūtae Putaputa and Waipara River) are not appropriate for modern settlement. To provide for the wellbeing of whānui, Ngāi Tahu wish to preserve the future opportunity for development of a settlement in accordance with tikanga Māori on other land we hold, in lieu of any practical opportunity on ancestral land. 65. Te Rūnanga submit that they recognise such a development would require consideration under a plan change process, but consider it would be appropriate to include policy direction in the PDP. Discussion 66. In terms of background information for the Hearings Panel, the issue of papakāinga housing was raised by Ngāi Tahu in early 2015 when Schedule 1 consultation on the PDP was undertaken. At that time, Ngāi Tahu requested that a framework was set out in an objective and policies to enable housing for Ngāi Tahu whanui. In response to this feedback, HDC advised that (refer to References/ Reports section of this report): We had a lengthy discussion about a new Ngāi Tahu settlement at Balmoral. Again, in advance of any detail relating to what this settlement may entail or its more precise size and location, there is little that could be incorporated into the District Plan at this early stage. It was agreed that a plan change process, in due course, may be the most appropriate step. 67. The issue was also discussed at a Council workshop in March Councillors expressed concern about papakāinga housing due to its perceived inconsistency with the Council s approach to cluster housing and other resource management issues and resolved not to include provisions for papakāinga housing in the PDP. The Council indicated that it would consider this as a submission or Plan Change as and when this is presented for consideration (refer to References/ Reports section of this report). 68. The submission by Te Rūnanga has not provided any detailed information on a manawhenua settlement proposal beyond what was already discussed prior to notification of the PDP. However, I note that both the Council and Te Rūnanga agree that a development of this nature would most appropriately be dealt with through a plan change process. Given this, I consider the core issue to be whether it is appropriate to introduce a policy framework for this under the PDP without any detailed information about provisions to implement this framework being known. 69. With regard to the CRPS, Policy provides for papakāinga housing and marae and includes methods for implementation of the policy. One of these methods is that local authorities: 13

14 should, together with Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, identify ancestral land of tangata whenua with mana whenua, to inform their regional and district plans. 70. The CRPS goes on to explain that: Ancestral land of tāngata whenua with mana whenua is generally land that has been owned by their ancestors and is not confined to land remaining in their ownership as Māori freehold or Māori customary land in accordance with Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993/Māori Land Act It requires some connection between culture and traditions and the land. Continuous ownership may be a relevant factor, and the extent to which a special relationship has been claimed or recognised by tāngata whenua with mana whenua across the generations. In each case, the effect of the proposed papakāinga housing and marae on the relationship must be considered on its merits.ancestral land for papakāinga housing and marae is a finite resource at (generally) fixed locations. 71. I consider that by not including a policy framework under the PDP that the Council could be seen, at face value, to be not implementing the CRPS. However, I think this needs to be considered in the context of what is known about the situation, and whether policy references only, without any further provisions in the plan to implement such a policy, would properly give effect to the CRPS in any case. 72. Te Rūnanga has stated in their submission that the ancestral settlements in the Hurunui district are not suitable for modern settlement and that they wish to wish to pursue development of a settlement in accordance with tikanga Māori on other land we hold, in lieu of any practical opportunity on ancestral land. In my view, this raises the possibility that if a policy was to be included now that was in line with the CRPS the resulting proposal, which would not be located on ancestral land, may not even be in general accordance with such a policy. 73. I therefore consider it would be most appropriate for a policy framework not to be implemented now under the PDP, but for a policy framework to form part of a request for a plan change. This way, the entire proposal, from conceptual level to detail, can be considered in a cohesive fashion, and the entire proposal assessed in accordance with s32 of the RMA and with regard to giving effect to the CRPS. Amenity and density considerations Building height rule Provisions 74. The following submissions relate to Rule 4.6.4, which sets out the maximum building height for buildings in the Residential Zone as follows: Height The maximum height of any building or structure shall be 8 m from the natural ground level, exept to the east of the Gore Bay Height Control Line, as shown on Map G in the Planning Maps, where the maximum height shall be 4.5 m. 14

15 Submissions and Discussion 75. The Fire Service supports the permitted rules for building height in the Residential and Business zones, these being 8m and 9m respectively. This is because fire stations are generally single storied buildings of 8-9m in height. 76. Clay and Blogg request that the permitted building height of dwellings in the Residential 3 zone in Hanmer Springs is maintained at 7.5m, as per the ODP, and not changed to 8m as per Rule Clay and Blogg object to an 8m maximum height for dwellings and accessory buildings in the Residential 3 zone in Hanmer Springs and also request that no other changes are made to the bulk and location rules affecting the Residential 3 zone in Hanmer Springs. 77. From researching the background to this rule I have deduced that the ODP had a variety of heights in different zones and townships. As a policy approach, the Council determined to standardise the approach to height in the PDP and apply a standard height across all residential zones and townships. This was because from a plan implementation aspect it is simplest to apply and administer one building height, and there was not considered to be a discernible difference between 7.5m and 8m. 78. I consider that the proposed 8m permitted building height is appropriate and that one height limit would be appropriate for all residential zones as this is a more efficient approach, but will be just as effective at achieving the Plan s objectives, so therefore recommend the 8m height limit is retained. 79. Caldwell and Fleischmann request that Rule is amended to remove the part of the rule which requires the building height to the east of the Gore Bay Height Control Line to be 4.5m. 80. Caldwell and Fleischmann submit that the proposed 4.5m height limit is unduly restrictive and unnecessary and significantly impacts on property development rights. There are some properties within this proposed building line restriction area that do not contain dwellings, and a number which are modest and/ or in poor condition. Caldwell and Fleischmann submit that the height restriction will severely constrain the ability to re-develop or improve these properties to bring them up to modern day standards. In turn, this will effectively limit the ability of property owners to use their properties as permanent residences. Caldwell and Fleischmann submit that a more efficient and effective way to give effect to the District Plan objectives is to retain the proposed Residential 1 rule height limit of 8m for Gore Bay. 81. Caldwell & Fleischmann also make reference to Plan Change 19. This was related to proposed Gore Bay Design Standards which were designed to maintain and enhance the values of Gore Bay. The Plan Change stemmed from submissions to the Council s Long Term Plan (2006/2007) that requested a review of zoning and settlement planning provisions throughout the Cheviot Ward. 82. One of the proposed Plan Change provisions was a 4.5m Building Height Restriction in the area where this is now being proposed under the PDP. This plan change was withdrawn by the Council in late 2009 following the recommendation of the Hearings Panel, with the Hearings Panel concluding that: 15

16 many of the detailed provisions proposed do not appear to have been considered in sufficient depth to ensure that they would be either effective, efficient or equitable in producing the environmental outcomes envisaged by the intended policy for the management of subdivision and land development in Gore Bay. 83. For context, I note that the Coastal Hazard line (which reflects that identified in the Regional Coastal Environment Plan) in the PDP somewhat limits the amount of development that can occur seaward of this line. While activities seaward of the line are managed by CRC with respect to the hazard, this line would also be a factor in determining how these properties can be developed. 84. With regard to the proposed building height limit of 4.5m at Gore Bay, my understanding is that this was a policy direction agreed by the Council on the basis that the 8m height limit in Gore Bay was considered to be too high. As a result, the 4.5m height limit that had previously been considered and rejected under the plan change was introduced into the PDP. My understanding is that no further analysis of the proposed height limit was undertaken at that time. 85. The recommendation from the Hearings Panel for Plan Change 19 stated: We are not satisfied that there has been sufficient detailed site assessment to justify the imposition of either the 4.5m building height restriction, or the 30 recession plane on the somewhat arbitrary division between areas A and B as proposed. There was then no further analysis or new information presented when this was introduced into the PDP. 86. While I accept that the Council has agreed to the proposed height limit as a policy decision, I consider that there has not been sufficient new justification presented as to why this should be introduced into the PDP. I recommend that 4.5m Building Height restriction in relation to Gore Bay is removed. Recommendation 87. Amend Rule as follows: Height The maximum height of any building or structure shall be 8 m from the natural ground level., exept to the east of the Gore Bay Height Control Line, as shown on Map G in the Planning Maps, where the maximum height shall be 4.5 m. Residential businesses Submission 88. Alan Brown requests that firewood operations, along with any other offensive business, is not allowed as a permitted activity in built up areas including rural lifestyle zones (Residential 3 zone). Alan Brown submits that at times these activities can be extremely noisy and can resound through entire dwellings, even though the permitted noise levels may not be breached. Brown submits that people should not be allowed to move in and start selling firewood for cash. 16

17 Discussion 89. I consider that, in essence, Alan Brown is asking for firewood operations, along with any other offensive business to be excluded from the definition of residential business. 90. The PDP has a definition of Residential Business which has been retained from the ODP. For the information of the Hearings Panel, I note that the Council interprets this definition as the premises being the entire residential site which means that a residential business can be undertaken in a shed or outbuilding on the residential site. The definition is: Residential Business means an occupation, craft or profession undertaken within premises that are primarily used for residential purposes, excluding panelbeating, mechanical repairs and the boarding or keeping of animals for commercial gain or benefit. 91. This definition operates in tandem with permitted activity standards addressing specific environmental effects from residential business activities (discussed more below). From discussions with resource consent and compliance staff, it is my understanding that this definition has performed well under the ODP. Further to this, I understand that it was not considered necessary to amend the rule to specifically exclude any other activities because it was considered sufficient to protect residential amenity. 92. In terms of the relevant policies, Policy 4.6 of the PDP relates to controlling site specific effects in the various zones: To control site-specific environmental effects, such as noise emissions, light spill and traffic generation, to levels appropriate to the zone. 93. Policy 4.10 relates to business activities in the Residential Zone: To ensure business activities in residential zones are limited in scale and character to protect residential amenity values. 94. These policies provide specific direction as to how residential businesses and their effects can be managed. The relevant rules for the Residential Zone regarding noise (Rule 4.6.7), light spill (Rule 4.6.6) and vehicle movements (Rule ) implement Policy 4.6 by the control of sitespecific environmental effects. The rules related to residential business activities (Rule ) and signs (Rule ), along with those set out above, implement Policy 4.10, helping to ensure the scale and character of residential businesses is appropriate for the surrounding residential area. 95. A residential business is therefore required to meet the permitted standards of these rules. Apart from the signage rule, the permitted standards in the PDP referred to above remain unchanged from the ODP. The changes to the signage rule only relate to a differentiation between the size of signs on sites adjoining state highways and those that do not adjoin state highways. It is my understanding that it was not considered necessary to change the rules regarding noise, light spill, vehicle movements and residential business activities because they were sufficiently controlling the effects of residential businesses and thus protecting general residential amenity. Based on the information submitted, I recommend that the definition of residential business and the related permitted activity standards, remain as proposed. 17

18 Dwellings in the Business Zone in Amberley and Hanmer Springs Provision 96. Rule (d) relates to dwellings in the Business 1A and 1H zones, as follows: Rule 4.15 Non-complying activities 2 Any activity listed below is a non-complying activity in the Business 1A and 1H zones: (d) Erecting a dwelling that does not comply with the standards in Rule ; and Submission 97. CDHB opposes Rule (d) which makes the erection of a dwelling in the Business 1A and 1H Zone a non-complying activity. CDHB submits that this rule would not appropriately implement the proposed objectives and policies, in particular Policy 4.16 which seeks to manage mixed land uses rather than avoid them. CDHB seeks that the rule is deleted. Discussion 98. Rule (b) is a permitted activity rule that provides for dwellings to be erected in the Business 1 zone as a permitted activity, provided they meet the density requirement of one dwelling per 250m 2. Rule (a) explicitly states that dwellings erected in the Business 1A or 1H Zone are not permitted. 99. Rule allows for dwellings to be considered in the Business 1A or 1H Zone as a restricted discretionary activity, subject to standards and terms including the activity needing to comply with the Residential Zone permitted activity standards; a density requirement of one dwelling per 400m 2 ; a building coverage requirement of 40% and the maximum number of dwellings erected on any site shall be two However, I note that Rule (d), which is relevant only to the Business 1A and 1H zones, makes reference to Rule , which is the permitted activity rule. I believe this reference is incorrect and that Rule (d)should refer to Rule , which is the restricted discretionary rule. Otherwise a dwelling in the Business 1A or 1H defaults straight to noncomplying, even where the standards in Rule are met In terms of Policy 4.16, this recognises that residential and business activities can co-exist, provided that they are designed in a manner that will avoid, mitigate or remedy adverse effects. I consider that the permitted and restricted discretionary activities are in accordance with this policy, as they allow for residential activities to be erected while meeting specified density requirements and standard terms. If the erection of a dwelling in a Business Zone does not meet the permitted or restricted discretionary rules then I consider it is appropriate that this is considered as a non-complying activity. This is because non-complying activities are generally not encouraged but there may be some unique circumstances where this may be appropriate In my view, Policy 4.16 is implemented under the suite of rules for dwellings in various Business Zones. I recommend the rule is retained, with the rule reference corrected as discussed above. I believe the retention of the rule, with the corrected reference, does address the concern raised by CDHB, who seek the appropriate implementation of Policy

19 Recommendation 103. That Rule (d) is amended as follows: Rule 4.15 Non-complying activities 2 Any activity listed below is a non-complying activity in the Business 1A and 1H zones: (d) Erecting a dwelling that does not comply with the standards in Rule ; and Semi-detached housing Submission 104. Landor request a new provision, requesting that the concept of duplex (semi-detached) housing be actively promoted and supported by the rules and policy, allowing the construction of such dwellings on one title Landor believe that the rules for the Amberley Outline Development Plan in respect to density are broadly acceptable, but request that they are amended to allow for current market trends. Landor submit that the market is signalling that there is more demand for easier care allotments that are within walking distance of shops and amenities. They request that a certain proportion of Residential 1 land within a development be allowed for semi-detached housing and that the use of these would not alter the overall density allowances, with a target of, for example, 700m 2 or 800m 2 sections for a pair of semi-detached dwellings. Landor s understanding is that there is nothing currently preventing semi-detached dwellings from being constructed in a development such as Oakfields in Amberley, but that the current rules treat each of these dwellings as a separate unit title. Discussion 106. From discussions with the resource consent staff I understand that semi-detached dwellings have not specifically been discouraged but would require separate lots to accommodate each dwelling, along with ensuring each dwelling meets bulk and location requirements. Relevant Building Act requirements for a firewall would also need to be met The PDP provides for a range of densities: Residential 1 and 1A (an Amberley-specific zone) allow for a minimum average lot area of 700m 2 and a minimum lot area of 400m 2 ; Residential 2 allows for a density of 400m 2 and Residential 3 allows for a density of 2000m 2. Plan Change 13 introduced the lower density zones for parts of Amberley. For the information of the Hearings Panel I also note that Plan Change 23, approved in 2011, generally increased the lot sizes in the settlements while allowing for a special type of development in the form of independent senior living units. The senior living unit rules allow for a smaller density but only for this specific type of development The Oakfields development in Amberley has 1A, 2 and 2D zoning which means that a mix of 700m 2 (1A) and 400m 2 (2) lots are expected. If semi-detached dwellings were to be proposed on neighbouring 400m 2 lots within the Residential 2 zone then this would still meet the expected density requirements. In my view, the PDP does not preclude semi-detached dwellings and does allow for the density that Landor proposes, although in the Residential 2 zone only. If an 19

20 application were to be received for such a proposal then it would be assessed against the relevant rules for the zone. I do not consider that a specific rule regarding semi-detached dwellings is required Further to this, I note that Plan Change 13 specifically examined densities in Amberley. The minimum average lot sizes and minimum lot areas of Residential 1A and 2 were determined as the result of specialist input into a range of factors including character, landscape values and general amenity. The 400m 2 density of the Residential 2 zone was determined to be the lowest density that would maintain character while balancing other considerations, and was off-set with a mix of Residential 1A zoning throughout the wider development The submission does not include information in support of market trends, and while this may be something the submitter wishes to provide further information on, such market analysis is likely to be one of many factors that would be considered when examining if a change to density is appropriate. Given that Plan Change 13 undertook a comprehensive analysis of the appropriate densities for the residential zones of Amberley, I do not consider that the submitter has presented sufficient justification as to why this should be re-examined. Recommendation 111. That an additional rule is not included regarding semi-detached dwellings and that the densities proposed for Amberley are retained. Development of Woodbank (South) Zone and setback provisions Provisions 112. A number of submissions were received regarding the Woodbank (South) Zone development. These submissions are relevant to both Chapters 4 and 5 but are discussed in this report for Chapter 4. Chapter 5 includes the following appendices related to the Woodbank (South) development: Outline Development Plan 6 Woodbank (South); - Appendix Outline Development Plan for Woodbank (South) Zone; - Appendix Woodbank (South) Zone Open space, Planting and Stormwater Network Plan; - Appendix Woodbank (South) Zone Movement network; - Appendix Woodbank (South) Zone Plant list and cross section. Submissions 113. MacQuarrie Holdings Ltd is the company that initiated the plan change which led to the Woodbank (South) Zone development being included as part of the PDP. MacQuarrie supports the proposal and requests retention of the relevant objective, policies and rules in Chapters 4 and 5, the general Outline Development Plan requirements and appendices for Woodbank (South) Zone Bruce Manley requests that the Outline Development Plan for Woodbank (South) is deleted, which I understand to mean is ultimately seeking that the rezoning proposed for this site is not 20

21 approved and the land retained as part of the Rural Zone (as per the ODP). As an alternative, the submitter requests a building setback of 50m from the eastern side of the Woodbank (South) Zone, adjacent to the existing residential properties along State Highway 7A. The submitter also requests that a reserve is created between the existing residential boundary and the boundary of the proposed lots in the Woodbank (South) Zone Bruce Manley requests this because when he purchased his property the land adjacent to his property on Hanmer Springs Road was zoned Rural and therefore subject to a requirement for any dwelling to be located 100m from his dwelling, or any other existing dwellings on a separate lot. As this adjacent land now forms the Woodbank (South) zone, which is residential under the PDP, a dwelling can be built as a permitted activity 1m from the rear boundary of his property. Bruce Manley also raises concern that, due to 35% building coverage being permitted, a large dwelling could potentially be built on a neighbouring site. Bruce Manley submits that Reducing the minimum distance that a building can be built from our property from 100 metres to 1 metre clearly represents an adverse effect on the environment; in particular the amenity values that we currently enjoy. Bruce Manley submits that such a change is contrary to Policy 4.21, which is: To ensure all residential and business developments are designed to maintain or enhance the amenity values and alpine character of the Hanmer Springs Township. Robert Hudson supports this as a further submission, in particular raising concern about the uninterrupted views currently enjoyed and supporting the 50m building setback. Discussion 116. The Hanmer Springs Growth Strategy dates from 2006 and this indicates that the Woodbank (South) zone was identified for future residential development to accommodate the growth anticipated for Hanmer Springs. The resulting Woodbank (South) development that was proposed was then adopted by the Council into the PDP, largely because the proposal was in accordance with Growth Strategy. The proposed residential zoning is supported by technical reports regarding various aspects of the proposal. In my view, I do not consider that Bruce Manley has put forward a compelling reason for the entire Woodbank (South) development to be removed from the PDP With regard to the request to increase the yard setback for the proposed lots, my analysis is as follows The existing dwellings along Hanmer Springs Road currently enjoy uninterrupted mountain views from the rear of the properties. However, I note that this viewshaft is not protected under the PDP and so these properties do not enjoy a right to this view. Bruce Manley s main argument is that of loss of amenity and, in my view, this is a valid concern. While the growth strategy has indicated since 2006 that this area could be appropriate for residential, I consider that effects on amenity still need to be considered and appropriately managed The yard setback rules applicable to all Residential zones (and which therefore would apply to Woodbank (South)) remain unchanged from the ODP. My understanding is that these have operated well so it was not seen as necessary to change them. The yard setback rules are applicable to all densities, whether this is 400m 2 in the Residential 2 zone or 2000m 2 in the Residential 3 zone. The intent of the yard setback rule is to protect general residential amenity 21

22 by preventing shading from neighbouring dwellings and providing a separation distance between dwellings to help reduce noise effects The area of the proposed Woodbank (South) development that would be adjacent to the existing dwellings along Hanmer Springs Road and Woodbank Road has a proposed density of 1500m 2 (Density Area 2). A small area adjacent to Ensors Drive is proposed to be Density Area 1 which has a minimum average lot area of 700m 2 and a minimum lot area of 500m 2. As such, the proposed dwellings that will adjoin existing lots will predominantly have the 1500m 2 density. The proposed larger sections next to the existing residential lots shows there has been consideration given to the impact on the existing sections, and I consider that this would generally allow for spacious plotting of dwellings on site. However, as Bruce Manley points out, the 1m yard setback would still be applicable even though the spacious density would be in place. With 1500m 2 sections I consider it unlikely that the dwellings themselves would be set 1m from the side and rear boundaries and that it would more likely be garages or sheds that are likely to be set 1m from these boundaries, however I recognise that it is possible that dwellings may be set 1m from boundaries I consider the core issue to be whether the development of the Woodbank (South) area adjacent to the existing dwellings provides justification as to why the 1m setback rule is not appropriate, bearing in mind that this is the general setback rule for all residential zones in the district, including for Residential 3 which has a density of 2000m 2. Bruce Manley has put forward a 50m setback as a compromise between the 100m setback required under the previous rural zoning of the Woodbank (South) land and the proposed new residential zoning I note that the intent of the 100m rural setback is designed to achieve the objective of maintaining the open space character and the level of density anticipated in the Rural Zone. The Woodbank (South) land is proposed to change to residential and, as discussed previously, this has been earmarked since 2006 in the growth strategy. The general character and amenity of the Residential Zone is not one of open space and rural density the character of the Residential Zone is that of built development which anticipates various residential densities and the general level of amenity expected in the Residential Zone anticipates these densities and the associated features. The zoning of the Woodbank (South) land as residential has been anticipated and it has been demonstrated that the development meets the relevant requirements. A change in the general amenity values from rural to residential accompanies this zoning change. Once built, the existing residential dwellings along Hanmer Springs Road and Woodbank Road and the new dwellings in the Woodbank (South) development will form a contiguous residential area that shares the same character and amenity values. Given this, I consider that the area does not present special circumstances that justify why the general residential setback standard is not appropriate for this development. With regard to Bruce Manley s suggestion of a reserve between the existing residential lots and the proposed lots, I consider that this may end up unintentionally separating the existing and proposed residential lots Further to this, I note that the Outline Development Plan in Appendix does have reserve areas, predominantly located between the residential zone and the business park area. The Hearings Panel may wish to consider if these are located in appropriate areas, or whether there is a need for more reserve areas. 22

23 Recommendation 123. That the provisions in relation to the development of the Woodbank (South) Outline Development Plan remain unchanged. Sale of alcohol and definition of supermarket Provisions 124. The following discussion relates to a proposed definition of supermarket, and to Rule which relates to hours of operation for activities involving the sale of alcohol. Rule is as follows: Hours of operation for activities involving the sale of alcohol (a) For any activity involving the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises, where the site on which it is located, fronts to or adjoins a site used for residential activities, the maximum hours of operation are 7.00am to 10.00pm Monday to Sunday inclusive. (b) The use of minibars in hotels that have serviced accommodation shall be exempt from Rule (a). Submissions 125. CDHB requests that the hours in this rule are amended to 9am to 9pm, submitting that these hours would reduce harm considerably without causing consumers any undue inconvenience. CDHB submits that reduced operating hours would contribute to a reduction in intoxication and encourage drinkers to spend more time drinking in supervised settings Progressives requests that a definition of Supermarket is added, as Rule includes reference to supermarkets but does not define what these are. The requested definition is: Supermarket means a retail shop where a comprehensive range of predominantly domestic supplies and convenience goods and services are sold for consumption or use off the premises and includes lotto shops and pharmacies located within such premises and where liquor licences are held for each premise supermarkets are except from compliance with any Local Alcohol Policy I assume that the word except is supposed to be exempt. The submitter may wish to make further comment on this. CDHB further submitted on this submission, opposing the wording in the definition that requests exemption from any Local Alcohol Policy. CDHB further submits that Local Alcohol Policies provide local communities with the opportunity to issue and maintain control on licensed premises, and that harm caused by excessive or inappropriate consumption of alcohol should be minimised. Discussion 128. Regarding the rule about sale of alcohol hours, I consider that the request by the CDHB goes beyond what the Council is able to control under a District Plan. Through the District Plan the Council is able to control amenity effects, which include the effects of noise from various activities on residential activities, such as a premise that serves alcohol. However, the District Plan does not, in my view, allow the Council to manage the wider effects of drinking on a 23

24 community. In my view, the rule intends to manage potential amenity effects from noise of a premises located adjacent to a residential activity. The 7am to 10pm hours under the rule are in general accordance with the rules related to noise, which have separate noise standards for the day (7am to 7pm) and night (7pm to 7am) with an upper maximum in place from 10pm to 7am. In my view, the noise rules generally recognise that after 10pm a lower level of noise can reasonably be expected. I consider the rule regarding hours of operation for the sale of alcohol is consistent with this and performs the function that is able to be carried out by the Council of controlling noise. I therefore recommend that this rule remains unchanged While it is generally well understood what constitutes a supermarket, I agree that since the term is used in the permitted rule it would be beneficial to have a definition of supermarket. I recommend accepting the proposed definition put forward by Progressives but not including the part about local alcohol policies. This is because a district plan cannot state that an activity is exempt from another policy. I note this is the outcome sought by the CDHB in their further submission, although my recommendation is based on different reasoning. Recommendation 130. That Rule remains unchanged That a definition of Supermarket is added to the PDP, as follows: Supermarket means a retail shop where a comprehensive range of predominantly domestic supplies and convenience goods and services are sold for consumption or use off the premises and includes lotto shops and pharmacies located within such premises. Definition of community services and educational activity Provisions 132. Rule (d) sets out that the establishment of educational facilities in the Industrial Zone is a non-complying activity The definition of community services in the PDP is: Community services include educational institutions, places of worship, libraries, hospitals, resthomes, community halls, childcare centres. Submission 134. MoE requests that the definition of Community services is amended to refer to educational activity rather than educational institutions. MoE also submits that Rule (d) refers to educational facilities but notes that this term is not defined. MoE requests that Rule (d) is amended to refer to educational activity, and that this is defined as follows: Educational Activity: means the use of any land and/or buildings for the provision of regular instructions, teaching, learning or training at state, private or integrated facilities, together with any associated boarding activities and includes ancillary administrative, recreational, religious, cultural, carparking and retail facilities. This includes, but is not limited to, any preschool, 24

25 primary school, intermediate school, secondary school, kohanga reo, language school, learning centre and tertiary education facility. Discussion 135. I agree that Rule (d) should refer to educational activities and not facilities. This is because I understand the intention of the rule is to prevent educational activities from occurring within the Industrial Zone, and it is the activity more so than the facility that is relevant. I also agree that defining educational activity would improve clarity for Plan users. Correspondingly, in my view, the definition of Community services should be amended to refer to educational activities. This would provide consistency between the two definitions. In my view, changing the term educational institution to educational activity within the definition of Community services does not extend the definition to include an aspect it does not already cover. Recommendations 136. That the definition of Community services is amended as follows: Community services include educational institutions activities, places of worship, libraries, hospitals, rest homes, community halls, childcare centres That a definition of Educational activity is added as follows: Educational Activity: means the use of any land and/or buildings for the provision of regular instructions, teaching, learning or training at state, private or integrated facilities, together with any associated boarding activities and includes ancillary administrative, recreational, religious, cultural, carparking and retail facilities. This includes, but is not limited to, any preschool, primary school, intermediate school, secondary school, kohanga reo, language school, learning centre and tertiary education facility That Rule (d) is amended to replace Educational facilities with Educational activities. Servicing hours 139. The Fire Service requests an amendment to Rule , which is related to servicing hours of activities located within 50m of residential sites: Servicing hours Within 50 m of a Residential site, there shall be no servicing of activities or operation of vehicles, other than those activities associated with residential activities, between 10pm and 7am Monday to Sunday inclusive. Submission 140. The Fire Service submits that training takes place between 7am and 10pm and that cleaning and maintenance of equipment would generally take place during the day. However, cleaning and maintenance of equipment may also be required after a call-out which could occur at any time. The Fire Service submits they have assessed that fire station activities will generally be capable of meeting the standards set out in NZS 6802: 2008: Acoustics Environmental Noise, with the 25

26 exclusion of noise created by emergency sirens. The Fire Service requests that Rule is amended to exempt fire station activities, as follows: Within 50 m of a Residential site, there shall be no servicing of activities or operation of vehicles, other than those activities associated with residential activities, between 10pm and 7am Monday to Sunday inclusive (fire fighting activities and appliances are exempt). Discussion 141. Given the emergency nature of fire fighting work, and that this can occur at any time, I agree that the activities involved with running of a fire station should be exempt from this rule. However, I suggest different wording from what the Fire Service requests, as in my view their requested wording would apply to fire fighting activities themselves, which would not occur at the fire station. The intention of their request is to exempt noise associated with normal fire station activities and my suggested wording reflects this. Recommendation 142. That Rule is amended as follows: Within 50 m of a Residential site, there shall be no servicing of activities or operation of vehicles, other than those activities associated with residential activities, fire station activities and servicing of fire fighting appliances, between 10pm and 7am Monday to Sunday inclusive. Miscellaneous Provision 143. Rule sets out the permitted activity rule for the Hanmer Springs Design Standards. Part (k) relates to exemptions, as follows: Exemptions for existing buildings: Where an existing principal or accessory building does not comply with the design standards for permitted activities, alterations and extensions are exempt from the requirement to comply with those standards; and Submission 144. HDC requests that the wording of some rules in the Settlements chapter is amended. HDC submits that the current wording of the rule leaves the interpretation open, for example when an accessory building is altered and converted for use as a residential dwelling. HDC submits it is not clear whether Rule (k) would apply to such situations. HDC requests the following wording is inserted: Exemptions for existing buildings: Where an existing principal or accessory building does not comply with the design standards for permitted activities, alterations and extensions are exempt from the requirement to comply with those standards providing the use of the building does not change; and 26

27 Discussion 145. As this request is related to interpretation of a rule, I have discussed this request with consents staff to gain an understanding of the background. The wording of the rule in the PDP remains unchanged from the ODP. The rule allows for a principal or accessory building that does not already meet the design standards to be exempt from the design standards when an alteration or extension is undertaken. However, there have been cases where alterations and extensions have resulted in a change of use of the building to an activity that is permitted (e.g.: farm shed to a dwelling). This has resulted in instances of non-residential buildings being converted to dwellings without the design standards being able to be applied. Through the HDC submission, consents staff requested that the rule is amended as set out above, which would result in the change of use of a building being required to be subject to the design standards. My understanding from this discussion is that is how the rule is intended to be applied In my view, the requested wording would provide clarification for both consents staff and Plan users as to what works are exempt from the Hanmer Springs Design Standards. However, my understanding is that the request has been made predominantly due to concern about the design standards not being able to be applied to changes of use which result in residential use. In my view, applying the design standards to all changes of use (as requested) would increase consenting requirements for any other changes of use. Given that the concern is regarding proposed residential use, in my view this would not be efficient. Furthermore, I understand that the Hanmer Springs Design Standards were intended to be applied to all residential dwellings in the Hanmer Springs residential zones. I therefore recommend that the rule is amended as set out below, so that it specifies that the design standards do apply to a change of use resulting in a residential use. Recommendation 147. That Rule (k) is amended as follows: Exemptions for existing buildings: Where an existing principal or accessory building does not comply with the design standards for permitted activities, alterations and extensions are exempt from the requirement to comply with those standards except where the use of the building changes to residential; and Provision 148. Rule 4.9 sets out the non-complying activities for the Residential Zone. Rule is as follows: 4.9 Any activity listed below is a non-complying activity: 3 In the Residential 3 zone, any dwelling that does not meet the minimum yard requirements of Rule 4.6.3; Submission 149. HDC requests that the activity status for dwellings in the Residential 3 zone that do not meet the minimum yard requirement is changed from non-complying status to discretionary status. HDC 27

28 submits that this rule has a discretionary status under the ODP and that it was not intended for this to be changed to a non-complying status under the PDP In my view, a discretionary activity status would be most appropriate as this status recognises that this type of breach is appropriate in some cases and can be assessed on a case-by-case basis. I consider that changing the status to non-complying would not be effective, because noncomplying activities are generally not encouraged. I note that the discretionary status was applicable under the ODP, which means that for the duration of the ODP the Council has considered yard breaches of this nature on a discretionary basis. I consider it would be appropriate for this rule to have a discretionary status rather than a non-complying status. Recommendation 151. That the activity status for dwellings in the Residential 3 zone that do not meet the minimum yard requirement is changed from non-complying to discretionary, as follows: 4.9 Any activity listed below is a non-complying activity: 3 In the Residential 3 zone, any dwelling that does not meet the minimum yard requirements of Rule 4.6.3; 4.8 Discretionary activities Any activity listed below is a discretionary activity: 4 In the Residential 3 zone, any dwelling that does not meet the minimum yard requirements of Rule 4.6.3; Submission 152. CDHB requests that rating standards such as Lifemark Standards or Homestar Ratings or similar are incorporated into the PDP, submitting that this would ensure that the Council future-proofs its building stock by integrating design standards that ensure all new residential dwellings provide for occupants health CDHB also requests that the definition of Disabled, elderly or retired person is amended to reflect the current terminology used by Work and Income. The invalid s benefit that is referred to in the proposed definition was replaced by the Supported Living Payment in July Discussion 154. In my view, incorporation of rating standards regarding the quality of building stock does not fall under the remit of the district plan, in that it is not required in order to achieve any of the PDP s objectives. At a policy level, new developments are encouraged to meet social needs of the district. However, requiring such a standard to be met for any new-build would be onerous and therefore is an inefficient way to meet the policy outcome. Further to this, the structural quality of a building is controlled under the Building Act, not the RMA. 28

29 155. I agree that the terminology in the definition of Disabled, elderly or retired person should reflect the current terminology used by Work and Income so I recommend that the amendment suggested by CDHB is accepted. Recommendations 156. That Lifemark Standards or Homestar Ratings or similar are not incorporated into the PDP That the definition of Disabled, elderly or retired person is amended as follows: Disabled, elderly or retired person means a person over the age of 65 years who qualifies for a permanent invalid s benefit supported living payment on health grounds and extends to include the partner, spouse, dependants or caregiver of such a person, notwithstanding that those persons may be under the age of 65 years. Submission 158. Peggy Hey requests that limits are put in place for heights of trees on residential boundaries and any trees that are hazardous. Peggy Hey also requests that properties are kept to a reasonable standard of tidiness. Discussion 159. The Rural Chapter of the PDP has limits on heights of trees and shelterbelts that are planted within 10m of the boundary of a property but there is no equivalent rule in the Settlements chapter. However, shelterbelts and forestry are particular rural issues that require a form of control. I do not consider that trees within settlements require the same degree of control With regard to keeping properties to a reasonable standard of tidiness, this is not something that can be controlled through the District Plan as it is not a resource management issue. I note that Council does have a Fire Prevention Bylaw (refer to References/ Reports section of this report) which requires that no persons shall light fires within 5m of any part of a building, tree, hedge, fence or other combustible material. In dry conditions, combustible material can reasonably include long grass and as such Council is able to require long grass to be mowed on private properties for fire risk reasons. Apart from that, Council has no mechanism to require property owners to keep properties in a tidy state. Recommendation 161. That rules are not introduced regarding heights of trees in the settlements or regarding tidiness of properties. 29

30 Technical matters Stormwater rules for Amberley Industrial and Business Zones Provisions 162. The rules related to stormwater run-off in the Residential, Business and Industrial zones in Amberley are set out in Chapters 4 and 5, as follows: Rule Business Zone Stormwater detention Any activity in a business zone in Amberley shall provide for all stormwater run-off to be detained on the site for a rainfall event of up to a 1% AEP rainfall event. Rule Industrial Zone Stormwater detention Any activity within the Industrial Zone in Amberley shall provide for all stormwater run-off to be detained on the site for a rainfall event of up to a 1% AEP rainfall event. Rule (d) Any application for subdivision consent in respect of land in any Residential, Business or Industrial zone in Amberley, shall include a stormwater management plan for the site showing how the rainfall run-off from the site from a 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) rainfall event will be detained on site. The stormwater management plan shall include the following information: (i) The estimated rainfall run-off from a 1% AEP rainfall event from the site, once fully developed. (ii) Where, how and for what length of time the rainfall run-off is to be detained and the anticipated rate of release in to the Amberley drainage system; (iii) The anticipated rate of discharge of stormwater in to the Amberley drainage system and any possible surface flood flow paths for a rainfall run-off exceeding a 1% AEP rainfall event; and (iv) Any proposed restrictions on site coverage or hard standing on the site to mitigate rainfall run-off. Submission 163. Hurunui Developments Ltd requests that both Rule and Rule are amended to refer to a 2%, rather than a 1% AEP rainfall event. Hurunui Developments submit that a global stormwater consent for Amberley has been granted by CRC and this covers the sites owned by them. This requires stormwater runoff to be detained on site for a rainfall event of up to a 2% AEP rainfall event. Discussion 164. For the information of the Hearings Panel, the Council applied for a global stormwater consent from CRC to control stormwater run-off within the settlement boundary of Amberley. This was applied for following a flooding event in Amberley in 2008 which saw the stormwater network in Amberley unable to cope with the amount of stormwater. The consent means the Council is 30

31 able to require new developers to implement stormwater management practices that are in accordance with the global consent In researching this submission I had discussions with various colleagues who were involved in the drafting of the PDP. I deduced the following from this research: - That Rule A of the ODP requires development within the Residential, Rural Lifestyle, Business or Industrial Zone in Amberley to detain and manage stormwater for an estimated rainfall run-off from a 2% AEP rainfall event. - That the global stormwater consent requires detention for a 2% run-off AEP rainfall event in the urban area in Amberley. - That it was not clear why the PDP rule for the Business and Industrial Zones had been changed to 1% detention My understanding is that the 1% threshold that has been proposed is likely a typograpchical error, as there does not appear to be any technical justification for it. I agree with Hurunui Developments Ltd that the proposed rules should state 2%, as this is in line with the ODP and the global stormwater consent from Canterbury Regional Council. In my view, Rules and should be changed to state 2% detention. For consistency purposes, I similarly recommend that Rule (d) is amended to 2% as a consequential change. Recommendation 167. That Rules , and (d) are amended replace any reference to 1% with 2% Fire fighting water supply Submission 168. The Fire Service supports the rules in the Rural chapter (Rule ) and Subdivision chapter (Rule in the Rural zone and Rule (b) which applies to the settlements) which require new allotments to provide for fire fighting water supply and requests that all zones in the Settlement chapter have rules requiring this. Discussion 169. It is my understanding that Rule in the Rural chapter is in place because for any Ruralzoned lots that are over 4ha that do not have a dwelling already, a dwelling can be erected as a permitted activity (subject to the other rules in the Rural chapter). This rule is therefore designed to trigger the requirement for such dwellings to have fire fighting water supplies installed where a subdivision consent is not required, thereby the relevant rule in the Rural zone of the Subdivision chapter is not triggered. I understand that this is considered necessary in rural areas because of the potential remoteness of dwellings and the lack of appropriate fire fighting supply in proximity to dwellings From discussions with consenting colleagues, I understand that the Council would not usually require an individual fire fighting water supply for dwellings located within the settlements (i.e.: not in the Rural Zone). This is because most of the settlements are reticulated so a fire fighting supply would already be in place and therefore individual dwellings would not require such a 31

32 supply. In non-reticulated settlements, fire fighting supply is considered through subdivision consents and my understanding is that the required supply (i.e. tank size) is far less than what the Fire Service are seeking through the application of Rule to Settlements. In my view, it would not be appropriate to apply the same standard to settlements as the Rural Zone. This is because dwellings in settlements, even where they are not connected to the reticulated supply, would usually be located near an existing fire fighting supply of some description. In introducing the requirement to settlements, there is also a risk that new dwellings erected on lots where a subdivision consent has been granted that meets the standard in Rule (b) would then require a land use consent because the supply established would not meet the land use rule. In my view it is therefore inefficient to introduce this rule for a matter that is either addressed at subdivision or is not required to be addressed due to the site s proximity to an existing fire fighting supply I therefore consider that an individual rule is not required under each of the Residential, Business, Industrial and Open Space zone rules in the Settlements chapter. Recommendation 172. That an individual rule regarding fire fighting is not included under the Residential, Business, Industrial and Open Space zone rules. Provisions setback for rail corridor Submissions 173. KiwiRail and NZTA both raised the issue of reverse sensitivity in relation to their infrastructure. NZTA supports the provisions in the Settlements chapter that seek to address reverse sensitivity effects of activities located in close proximity to state highways KiwiRail generally supports the yard setback rules but notes that the 1m would apply to sites where a rear boundary adjoins a railway. KiwiRail submits that a 1m setback from a boundary would rarely enable a building to be accessed and maintained from entirely within the property. KiwiRail submits that this raises a significant safety concern. KiwiRail requests that a yard setback of 5.0m for yards adjoining the rail corridor is added to the Residential, Business and Industrial Zone permitted activity rules. KiwiRail also requests that reference to the specific yard setback is added to the relevant assessment criteria. Discussion 175. From a safety point of view, I agree that the yard setback rules could be an appropriate way to ensure that property owners do not inadvertently use the rail corridor for maintenance purposes. However, on a small site the proposed 5m setback could potentially severely restrict the area available for building on a site The s42a Report for Chapter 3 has discussed a similar request from KiwiRail. This concluded that a setback of 4m is appropriate because this has been recommended for inclusion in the Christchurch Replacement District Plan for the residential zone. Given this, I consider a 4m setback would also be appropriate for the settlements. 32

33 Recommendation 177. That the following rules related to yard setbacks are amended as follows: Rule Yards (a) Minimum yard requirements are: Front yard 4.5m Yards adjoining the rail corridor 4.0m All other yards 1.0m Rule Yards Yards adjoining the rail corridor 4.0m Within 20m of a Residential zone Rule Yards For any site that shares a boundary with a Residential Zone, a minimum 1m yard is required from the shared boundary. For any site that adjoins the rail corridor, a minimum 4.0m yard setback is required from the shared boundary. Technical matters related to the Woodbank (South) zone Provisions 178. The relevant provisions are: Rule Woodbank (South) Residential area: The following activities are discretionary activities (unrestricted) within the Woodbank (South) Residential Area 2: (a) Any new residential activity between 350m and 500m of the Hanmer Springs Waste Water Treatment Plant. Rule Woodbank (South) Residential area 2: (a) Any new residential activity within 350m of the Hanmer Springs Waste Water Treatment Plant. Submission 179. Bruce Manley submits that the PDP provides no evidence that the Woodbank (South) development will not face a smell hazard associated with the existing sewage effluent ponds, and that without this evidence the development should not be allowed. Discussion 180. In response to this I note that as part of the original plan change application an odour assessment was completed by Golder Associates. A peer review of the odour assessment was 33

34 requested by the Council and this was completed by Specialist Environmental Services Ltd (refer to References/ Reports section of this report). Both of these reports were re-produced in the s32 Reports produced by the Council when the PDP was notified. The Golder Associates report states: The odour effects from the Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) have been assessed using several qualitative assessment methods. From this assessment, it is concluded that an appropriate buffer between new residential dwellings on the MacQuarrie land and the WWTP is 300m. It is considered that residential activities and other activities sensitive to odours from the WWTP are unlikely to be adversely effeted by odours from the WWTP beyond this distance during normal operating conditions of the WWTP The report by Specialist Environmental Services Ltd concluded: The review is in overall agreement with the conclusions reached by Golder Associates regarding the reverse sensitivity effects relating to odour from the existing Hanmer Springs WWTP and the recommended buffer distances. The key conclusions related to residential zoning are: Local wind conditions are such that the frequency of southerly winds blowing from the WWTP towards the proposed subdivision is small. The odour survey is of limited value because of the small number and the location of respondents. However the results are consistent with the expectation that the WWTP is unlikely to cause significant odour at a distance of 500m to the north of the site. Provided the WWTP is operated in accordance with good practice and resource consent conditions, a separation distance of 300m from residential development in the proposed subdivision is appropriate As such, the Council was satisfied that residential development could be located less than 500m from the Hanmer Springs WWTP. Under Rule non-complying consent is required for residential development within 350m of the WWTP, and under Rule discretionary consent is required for residential development located between 350m and 500m of the Hanmer Springs WWTP. Based on this information, I conclude that sufficient evidence has been provided to the Council that residential development in the Woodbank (South) zone can occur less than 500m from the Hanmer Springs WWTP, and this is appropriately managed through the proposed rule framework Further to this, I note that another recommendation from the Specialist Environmental Services Ltd report is: Separation distances specified in the district plan should refer to the boundary of the WWTP site, not the treatment ponds. This would ensure that the primary screen, solids storage and potential future activities within the WWTP site are taken into account I presume the advice from Specialist Environmental Services Ltd was intended to be incorporated into the rules but it was inadvertently omitted. I note that inserting reference to the boundary of the WWTP in the rules would make them consistent with the diagram in 34

35 Appendix To address the concern raised by Bruce Manley, I recommend that Rules and are amended to refer to the boundary of the WWTP site, as per the specialist advice. Recommendations 185. That Rules and are amended as follows: Rule Woodbank (South) Residential area: The following activities are discretionary activities (unrestricted) within the Woodbank (South) Residential Area 2: (a) Any new residential activity located between 350m and 500m of the boundary of the Hanmer Springs Waste Water Treatment Plant. Rule Woodbank (South) Residential area 2: (a) Any new residential activity located within 350m of the boundary of the Hanmer Springs Waste Water Treatment Plant. Submission 186. Te Rūnanga requests that the provision for residential development for Woodbank (South) and Woodbank (River Edge) Outline Development Zones is deferred until the Hanmer Springs sewage disposal system has been upgraded, due to concern about the continuing discharge of the Hanmer Springs sewerage system into the Chatterton River. This relates to various provisions within Chapters 4 and 5. Discussion 187. Any discharge into waterways is a matter controlled by CRC, so this is not a matter that should be addressed by the PDP. In terms of whether the sewerage system has capacity to service the additional lots in the Woodbank (South) Zone development, I draw the Hearing Panel s attention to the following: 188. As part of the original private plan change application for Woodbank (South), an engineering report by Cardno TCB, dated January 2010, was submitted which stated the following in relation to sewer servicing: The Hurunui District Council has advised that there are no capacity restraints for discharge of sewage from the subject property into their reticulation in Hanmer Springs Road. The report goes on to recommend a sewer catchment for the Business Park and the Residential area, concluding that it is therefore feasible to provide a modern sustainable sewer service to the Plan Change Application site. (refer to References/ Reports section of this report) In response to a further information request a report by E2 Environmental, dated January 2013, provided further information on engineering serviceability. This advised: Peter Farrant (Utilities Engineer with HDC) confirmed that there is sufficient capacity for wastewater flows from this development provided that the wastewater network servicing the development is sealed to prevent infiltration and inflows. The elevated groundwater in some 35

36 areas of the site may skew the reticulation type toward alternative sewer systems that minimise the potential for infiltration of groundwater 190. Based on this information, my understanding is that the proposed development at Woodbank (South) is capable of being connected to and serviced by the existing Hanmer Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant. This is in accordance with Policy 4.1 (i) which requires residential developments to be served with appropriate levels of infrastructure. I therefore recommend no changes in relation to Te Rūnanga s concerns on this matter. In relation to the Woodbank (River Edge) Outline Development Zone, I note that the zoning is already in the ODP and that as part of this site being rezoned under a previous Plan Change, wastewater capacity was considered and deemed sufficient to allow for the zoning. Recommendation 191. That the provision for residential development for Woodbank (South) Outline Development Zone and Woodbank (River Edge) Outline Development Zone is not deferred until the Hanmer Springs sewage disposal system has been upgraded. 36

37 Requests for zoning changes: Introduction 192. The submission points discussed in this section relate to individual requests for zoning changes and settlement boundary changes. As these generally relate to a specific site, these are discussed individually although have been grouped by settlement. Appendix 3 contains maps showing each site that is discussed and the changes that are recommended As set out in the introduction of this chapter report, it is up to the Council whether future plan changes would include an examination of settlement boundaries. Given that there is no certainty that such an examination will occur, I have not recommended that any submissions regarding requests for zoning changes are deferred to a potential plan change. However, in relation to some submissions I have detailed if I think a strategic review of a site or settlement would be beneficial. Further to this, all submitters have the right to a decision being made on their submission under the PDP process. 37

38 Amberley (Map A) Submission by Alex Clyne Submitter (submission no.) Alex Clyne (18) Further submissions received No Site Address: 24 Courage Road, Amberley Legal description: Lot 17 DP Current zoning Residential 1A Requested zoning Business 1 Recommendation Reject Submission and Discussion 194. Alex Clyne submits: I am concerned about the lack of business zoned land available to be developed in Amberley. While there is bare land around our block I feel it would be a good time to look at rezoning some more business land. At the moment there is a glut of residential sections for sale and alot of residential land which could be developed Alex Clyne requests to rezone the block of land at 24 Courage Road from residential to business while it will be easy to mitigate any future effects on surrounding properties Plan Change 13 enlarged the Amberley Business Zone. The Business 1 zone is located on both sides of Carters Road in the centre of the settlement. The Business 2 zone for Retail and Civic Core is located on the east side of Carters Road, north of Amberley Beach Road. The site at 24 Courage Road is located adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Business 1 zone My understanding is that the plan change analysed Amberley township and determined the most appropriate locations for business zones. The plan change went through a full consultative process and was considered and decided on by the Council. The plan change became operative in The Brackenfields development, located in the Business 2 zone, has a supermarket and a number of the smaller retail stores have been filled. The Amberley Business Park, located in the Business 1 zone, gained subdivision consent in 2015 and a few of the sites have been occupied. However, both of the business zones have a number of vacant lots. As such, there are a number of existing Business-zoned lots available in Amberley From my research I deduced that Plan Change 13 provided for residential, industrial and business-zoned land in Amberley. The plan change was comprehensive in that it analysed the whole township and its projected future needs. Plan Change 25 also introduced a Business 1 (town centre) zone. Further to this, as there is vacant business-zoned land available in Amberley I do not see how providing more business-zoned land at this point in time would be beneficial Based on the information submitted with the submission I recommend that the Residential 1 zoning for the site at 24 Courage is maintained. 38

39 Recommendation 201. Retain Map A to show 24 Courage Road, Amberley as Residential 1. Submission by Ambers Property Development Ltd Submitter (submission no.) Ambers Property Development Ltd (51) Further submissions received Site Current zoning Requested zoning Recommendation No Address: Oakfields development, Amberley Beach Road Residential 1A, 2 and 2D Various changes to the zoning of Oakfields development. Accept in part Submission 202. Ambers is progressively developing the Oakfields residential development on the northern side of Amberley Beach Road. Ambers requests various changes relating to the zoning of Oakfields development. These changes apply to various provisions in Chapters 4 and 5 as well as Planning Map A. The whole submission has been analysed under this s42a report. The changes requested are summarised as follows. Please note the submission includes annotated maps showing the requests: - Ambers request that Planning Map A and Appendix is amended so that the area of Residential 2 zoning located to the north of Pemberton Drive is rationalised to accommodate a larger Residential 2 zone, which allows for a minimum lot area of 400m 2. Ambers submit this would be appropriate as it would allow for a more logical and cohesive boundary and the location is ideal for higher density living given the proximity to the town centre, shops and services. - Ambers request that Rule is amended so that the eastern part of the Oakfields development that adjoins the Residential 3 Zone be allowed a minimum lot area of 400m 2. Ambers submit that this part of the development is in the vicinity of a walkway and cycleway linking through to the Tekoa Estate to the east and that 400m 2 lot sizes are appropriate to offset the development costs associated with forming the walkway. Ambers submit there will be no noticeable difference in amenity effect for the adjoining Residential 3 Zone. - Appendix shows the Outline Development Plan for Residential 1A Zone in relation to the Oakfields development. Ambers request this is amended to show the pattern of approved and consented development that has occurred since the Outline Development Plan was developed. - Ambers request that Appendix is amended to be consistent with Planning Map A, in that Appendix shows an area of Residential 2 Zone which is shown as Residential 2 Zone on Planning Map A. 39

40 Discussion 203. I consider that the zoning change requests by Ambers and Michael and Jane Malthus (discussed later in this report) are somewhat different in nature to the other zoning requests. This is because both sites are already located within the settlement boundaries of the respective settlements (Amberley and Hanmer Springs) and are already zoned residential. As such, these submissions are focused on the density of the relevant residential sites As discussed previously in this report, Plan Change 13 examined a range of factors including character, landscape values and general amenity and determined appropriate densities for Amberley. For the Oakfields development, it was determined that the Residential 1A density was appropriate for the majority of the site because this was offset by a mix of Residential 2 and 2D, and this maintained the character of the area. In response to the requests from Ambers my response and recommendations are as follows: 205. With regard to the request to rationalise the Residential 2 Zone, it is my understanding that the original intent of having Residential 2 zoning where it was proposed was for the same reason as set out by Ambers that is, encouraging higher density zoning close to amenities, shops and services, this being in accordance with Objective 4.3 which encourages settlements that meet the economic, social and cultural needs of the district, while retaining their own character. Policy 4.11 provides more specific direction, encouraging high density residential development in close proximity to Amberley town centre, provided such developments maintain a sense of spaciousness and greenery and are undertaken in accordance with an approved concept plan. In my view, the proposed request to rationalise the Residential 2 zone is not significantly different to the existing zoning and I consider that rationalising the zoning would continue to achieve the intent of Objective 4.3 and Policy I therefore recommend that this change is accepted With regard to the request to have 400m 2 lots adjacent to the Residential 3 zone, I do not consider this is appropriate for the following reasons. As well as having a mix of Residential 1A, 2 and 2D densities, the sites within Oakfields that adjoin Amberley Beach Road and the Residential 3 Zone and Rural Zone to the east are required to have a minimum lot area of 1,100m 2. This lower density on the outer parts of the development was considered and determined under Plan Change 13, because there are existing Residential 3 lots to the east and south of the Development, in Tekoa Estate and Teviotview Place respectively. I consider that changing the density of the sites adjacent to Tekoa Estate to 400m 2 would not maintain the character that was carefully considered under Plan Change 13. Furthermore, I consider that locating high density sites on the eastern side of Oakfields, away from the town centre, would not be in keeping with Policy I also note there is a typographical error in Rule because this refers to the Rural Lifestyle zone which is a zone under the ODP. The equivalent zone under the PDP is Residential 3, so this rule should be corrected With regard to the requests to change Appendix , I do not consider it appropriate to amend this appendix to reflect the consented development. This is because Appendix shows the indicative layout of the development when it was discussed at Plan Change 13 stage and any subsequent consenting details are not required to be shown on this. However, I do agree with Ambers that Appendix should reflect the zoning under Planning Map A, which is the correct zoning. 40

41 Recommendations 208. That Planning Map A is amended to show the rationalised Residential 2 Zone as set out in the submission by Ambers Property Development Ltd That Rule is retained, with a typographical error corrected: Residential 1A Zone, for lots created which adjoin Amberley Beach Road or a Rural lifestyle Residential 3 or Rural Zone 210. That Appendix is amended to show the Residential 2 Zone corrected to Residential 2D Zone. Submissions by Mark Harrison, Hurunui District Council and Landor Development Ltd Submitter (submission no.) Mark Harrison (13) and Hurunui District Council (106) Further submissions received In relation to the access issue (refer to discussion below) Site Address: 175P Carters Road, Amberley Legal description: LOT 2 PD BLK VII TEVIOTDALE SD Current zoning Rural Requested zoning Residential 1D and include within the settlement boundary of Amberley Recommendation Accept in part as follows: - reject Residential 1D zoning, recommend Residential 1A zoning. - include within the settlement boundary of Amberley. Submitter (submission no.) Landor Developments Ltd (75) Further submissions received In relation to the access issue (refer to discussion below) Site Addresses and legal descriptions: 62 Amberley Beach Road: LOT 2 DP BLK VIII TEVIOTDALE SD 88 Amberley Beach Road: LOT 2 DP LOT 3 DP BLK VIII TEVIOTDALE SD 181 Carters Road: LOT 1 DP BLK VIII TEVIOTDALE SD 193 Carters Road: LOT 1 DP Carters Road: LOT 1 DP Current zoning Residential 1 Deferred Requested zoning Residential 1A Recommendation Accept 211. The following discussion is relevant for the submissions received from Mark Harrison and Landor, who both have interests in pieces of land located south of Amberley Beach Road, and the Council s submission. Provisions and Submissions 212. Mark Harrison owns 175P Carters Road. In the notified version of the PDP this land was zoned Rural and was excluded from the settlement boundary of Amberley Mark Harrison requests that the zoning of 175P Carters Road, Amberley is changed from Rural to Residential 1 Deferred, and that this site is included within the settlement boundary of Amberley. 41

42 214. Landor has an interest in the land owned by Hurunui Developments Ltd (HDL), which is located south of the Harrison land. While this land comprises five separate titles, this forms one contiguous piece of land and throughout my discussion I have referred to this collectively as the HDL land. The HDL land was zoned Residential 1 Deferred in the PDP and is included within the settlement boundary of Amberley Landor seek that the land owned by HDL is zoned residential, not Residential 1D. They object to this because of reasons related to the access of the land. The access issue, which is also relevant for the Harrison and, is analysed in the s42a report for Chapter 5. For clarification, I note that while the submission by Landor requests residential zoning, it does not specify which type of zoning is requested. As the land is currently zoned Residential 1 Deferred which changes to Residential 1A once all relevant conditions are met, I have assumed the requested zoning is Residential 1A, which is an Amberley-specific zone. Discussion 216. In researching the background related to the zoning of the Harrison land and HDL land, I gathered information from consenting and engineering staff who have been involved in various aspects of these pieces of land. I summarise this information as follows: - Under the ODP, the HDL land was zoned Residential 1 Deferred. The developer of any Residential 1 Deferred land in Amberley is required to demonstrate that adequate sewage and stormwater disposal can be provided (ODP Rule A3.0.3). Once this has been met, the land defers to Residential 1A zoning with some additional standards and terms, one of these being access requirements to State Highway 1 (this is discussed further in the s42a report for Chapter 5). - Under the ODP, the Harrison land was zoned Rural and excluded from the settlement boundary of Amberley. At a workshop in May 2014, Council agreed that the Harrison land would be zoned Residential 1 Deferred under the PDP, and included within the settlement boundary of Amberley. This was agreed to because of the requirements that are in place for any Residential 1 Deferred land. - However, when the PDP was notified the Harrison land was shown with its previous ODP zoning of Rural. In their submissions, both Mark Harrison and the Council therefore requested that the Residential 1 Deferred zoning be shown and the site be included within the settlement boundary of Amberley as was agreed to in May While analysing these submissions, further research showed that the sewage and stormwater disposal requirements specified under the ODP rule have been met for both the Harrison land and the HDL land (confirmed by Council s Utilities team). This means that both pieces of land can be zoned Residential 1A, and as such the PDP does not need to carry over the Residential 1 Deferred zoning. I note that this does not precisely align with the submitters requests, but it is appropriate to manage both areas in largely the same manner as the remainder of the Amberley Residential 1A land. I also note that while the Residential 1 Deferred zone is being deleted, the access requirements that relate to these lots are continued in the PDP please refer to the s42a report for Chapter 5. 42

43 - Based on this information, I consider that the appropriate zoning for both the Harrison land and HDL land is Residential 1A and so I recommend Planning Map A is amended to show this, as well as showing the Harrison land as being included within the settlement boundary of Amberley. Recommendations Amend Map A Amberley to zone 175P Carters Road, Amberley (Lot 2 DP 79268) as Residential 1A and include it within the Settlement boundary of Amberley. Amend Map A Amberley to zone the land owned by Hurunui Developments Ltd as Residential 1A. Submissions by Steve and Mary Connor & Hurunui Developments Ltd Submission Submitter (submission no.) Steve and Mary Connor (8) Hurunui Developments Ltd (61) Further submissions received Steve and Mary Connor further submitted in support of their own submission and Hurunui Developments Ltd s submission Site Address: 88 Amberley Beach Road, Amberley Legal description: LOT 2 DP LOT 3 DP BLK VIII TEVIOTDALE SD Current zoning Rural Requested zoning Residential 3 or Residential 1 Deferred and extend the Amberley settlement boundary to include the site. Recommendation Accept 217. Steve and Mary Connor request that the zoning of 88 Amberley Beach Road is changed from Rural to Residential 3 or Residential 1 Deferred and that the Amberley settlement boundary is extended to include the site. Steve and Mary Connor submit that the proposed location of the urban boundary will cut through the site, creating a 0.8ha lot outside the settlement boundary which would not meet the Rural Zone permitted lot size The submission by Hurunui Developments Ltd reiterates the point made by Steve and Mary Connor about a non-complying lot being creating outside the settlement boundary, although do not specifically request a zoning change. Discussion 219. In my view, both submitters raised valid points regarding a non-complying Rural lot being created and this being located outside the settlement boundary. While the site in question is located on the edge of the settlement, it is located opposite the south-eastern corner of the Oakfields development which has Residential 1A zoning, thus allowing for development with a minimum lot area of 400m 2 and a minimum average lot area of 700m 2 to be developed across the road from the site. Further to this, I note the Tekoa Estate is located to east of Oakfields, which means the settlement boundary on the northern side of Amberley Beach Road extends further east than the boundary on the southern side of Amberley Beach Road. 43

44 220. Policy 4.12 provides for low density residential development at the outer edges of larger settlements, with single, detached dwellings on large allotments. My view is that on balance it would be appropriate to include the site at 88 Amberley Beach Road within the Amberley settlement boundary, and that Residential 3 zoning would be in line with Policy I consider this zoning would provide a gradation of zoning from the Residential 1D zoning of the remainder of the Hurunui Developments Ltd site to the east and the Rural zoning to the immediate east of the site. Recommendation 221. Amend Map A to show 88 Amberley Beach Road, Amberley: - with Residential 3 zoning; and - within the settlement boundary of Amberley. 44

45 Cheviot (Map D) Submission by Thomas Kirkwood & Irene Steven Submission Submitter (submission no.) Thomas Kirkwood and Irene Steven (30) Further submissions received No Site Address: Part of 56 Caverhill Road, Cheviot Legal description: Lot 4 DP Current zoning Rural Requested zoning Residential 3 Recommendation Reject 222. Thomas Kirkwood and Irene Steven request that the site legally referred to as Lot 4 DP is re-zoned from Rural to Rural Lifestyle. Lot 4 is connected to Lot 3 which is zoned Residential 3 and is within the settlement boundary (refer to map).thomas Kirkwood and Irene Steven submit as follows: At previous District Plan we were told the Council would get this changed; we have had to turn down many requests to purchase this block due to its designation Thomas Kirkwood and Irene Steven submit: We seek a positive outcome for the Zone change to match this property with others in the vicinity; the Zoning is against the area; being zoned Rural provides no income regarding rural activities. Discussion 224. The ODP has a Rural Lifestyle zoning for this property which has the same density as Residential 3 zoning (2000m 2 ) in the PDP. As such, I have assessed the submission based on the assumption that the Residential 3 zoning is what is being requested While Lot 4 is legally connected to Lot 3, the site is located outside the Cheviot settlement boundary and is separated from Lot 3 by an area of open space. As such, the site is physically separated from the closest Residential 3 sites and is somewhat disconnected from the remainder of the township. I consider that the extension of the settlement boundary to include this site would not necessarily constitute consolidated development Typically, sites that are zoned for a residential use are generally located within a settlement. As set out earlier in this report, the District Plan Review did not include an analysis of whether settlement boundaries should be changed however this may be something that the Council may wish to examine for a number of settlements. Given the current location of the settlement boundary, I consider the current Rural zoning is appropriate. Recommendation 227. Retain Map D to show Lot 4 DP as Rural zoning. 45

46 Culverden (Map F) Submission by Mountain View Trust Submission Submitter (submission no.) Mountain View Trust (4) Further submissions received Mountain View Trust Site Address: 26 Lyndon Street, Culverden Legal description: SEC 67 CULVERDEN TSHIP-IRRIGATION PURPOSES Current zoning Industrial Requested zoning Residential 1 for most of the site with a small part retained as Industrial Recommendation Reject 228. Mountain View Trust requests that a large part of 26 Lyndon Street, Culverden is re-zoned from Industrial to Residential The submission sets out background information, noting that the site was a Ministry of Works site in the 1970 and 80s when the Amuri Plains irrigation scheme was being developed. At that time the property contained worker accommodation which was subsequently sold and removed. The buildings located at the northern end of the site were formerly Ministry of Works offices, sheds and workshops and were retained and are currently used for commercial purposes. Five businesses now operate from these premises. The remainder of the site has been converted to pasture Leo Dunne submits, on behalf of Mountain View Trust, that he has become aware that Culverden township is developing and that there is little land left for residential development and that the block of land at 26 Lyndon Street would be suitable for residential use. Leo Dunne proposes that the northern portion of the site would retain its Industrial zoning and commercial use, to reflect current usage and that of neighbouring businesses, with the remainder of the site being re-zoned to residential. Discussion 231. The site is just over 3ha in area and is located at the eastern end of Lyndon Street, adjacent to the eastern boundary of Culverden settlement. Lyndon Street forms the northern boundary of the site; St Leonards Street borders the southern boundary; Rural-zoned land (outside the settlement boundary) is located to the east and a mix of Industrial and Residential 1 zone land is located to the west. As the site is already located within Culverden settlement boundary, the principle of whether to extend the settlement boundary is not being considered The site at 26 Lyndon Street is surrounded predominantly by Residential 1 zoned land, with a small parcel of Industrial land to the west of the site at 20 Lyndon Street The current zoning of Culverden has predominantly Business-zoned land along the main thoroughfare along with some Residential and Open Space, with the majority of Residential land located to the east of the main road. There are pockets of Industrial-zoned land located at the 46

47 site in question and its neighbouring site, as well as to the northeast of the township, along St Leonards Road In terms of industrial land uses, my understanding is that these are tending to develop towards the northern end of the township, particularly along the northern side of St Leonards Road (the old saleyards) even though this is outside of the settlement boundary, which runs along the southern side of St Leonards Road I can see merit in examining whether a residential use would be more appropriate for the land at 26 Lyndon Street. This is because the site is already located within the settlement boundary and, apart from the industrial zone at 20 Lyndon Street, is surrounded by residential use. The land parcel is large so could accommodate a number of residential sites. Furthermore, my presumption is that the current industrial zoning for both 26 and 20 Lyndon Street probably eventuated as a result of the historic land uses, rather than a specific intent to have industrial land located on the edge of the township and surrounded by residential land However, the site is listed on both CRC s Listed Land Use Register (LLUR) and the Council s Hazardous Activities and Industries List (HAIL) as being potentially contaminated. The LLUR entry states that previous and current uses of the northern part of the site include storage tanks or drums for fuel, chemicals or liquid waste and motor vehicle workshops. Policy 4.1 (v) of the PDP requires areas identified for residential development to avoid contaminated land. Chapter 18, which deals with contaminated land, has a policy framework which requires the risk to people and the environment from contaminated land to be avoided or minimised. This means that the site would require the potentially contaminated land to be investigated before it could be determined if it is appropriate for residential development. Further to this, Policy 4.1 (i) requires residential development to be served with appropriate levels of infrastructure. These and other matters would need to be examined to determine if residential development of the land is feasible Notwithstanding the potential contamination issue, I consider that an examination of the zoning of 26 Lyndon Street would need to be considered at a strategic level, and that this should form part of a wider strategic review undertaken by the Council. This would need to consider the demand and provision for industrial-zoned land within the Culverden Township, as well the location for both industrial and residential zones. Recommendation 238. Retain Map F to show 26 Lyndon Street, Culverden as Industrial. Submission by Culverden Community Committee Submitter (submission no.) Culverden Community Committee (15) Further submissions received No Site Address: 27 Mountainview Road, Culverden Legal description: PT LOT 1 DP BLK VI CULVERDEN SD & EASEMENTS DP Current zoning Business 1 Requested zoning Open Space Recommendation Reject 47

48 Submission 239. The Culverden Community Committee submit that the PDP has an error in that part of Rutherford Reserve is zoned Business, which was not the intention of the Culverden community. The Culverden Community Committee submit that: the community has developed this area with a ring road which has been extensively planted over the many years since the land was purchased by the council in Refer to the submission (no. 15) for an annotated map submitted by the Culverden Community Committee showing what they request to be re-zoned from Business to Open Space The Culverden Community Committee submits information from the minutes of the Amuri Community Committee meeting from 19 May 2010 which state: Discussion Parking and ring road: steps need to be taken to formally have this area as a Road Reserve. It is a very busy area not only for locals but also for travelling public parking and an overnight stop for trucks to park up In terms of background, this issue was raised at the Amuri Community Committee on 20 May At that time, Council Officers researched the issue and responded back to the Culverden Community Committee. This information is summarised below: The Business zoning from the ODP has been rolled over into the PDP. Council Officers were of the view that the Business zoning was likely intended to legitimise the existing uses of the site and to provide for potential future development which never eventuated. The Hurunui Reserves Management Plan 2012 (refer to References/ Reports section of this report) sets out the boundaries of Culverden and Rutherford Railway Reserves (refer to page 107 of the Management Plan). The Management Plan states that the Rutherford Railway Reserve was recently amalgamated to form part of the Culverden Recreation Reserve. The area that the Culverden Community Committee requests to be re-zoned from Business to Open Space is not actually part of the Culverden Recreation Reserve. The area in question (27 Mountainview Road) is located to the north and west of the reserve boundary. It appears that part of the area in question is used for carparking. Also, the Amuri Concept Development Plan indicates that there may have been an intention to build a car museum and café on the site In terms of the information that has been submitted regarding the ring road, my understanding is that the ring road that is referred to is located within the Business-zoned land to the north of the reserve, to the rear of the existing shops along Mountainview Road (SH7). Council s mapping shows that there is a local road located between 25 and 29 Mountainview Road (the road being part of the land parcel of 27 Mountainview Road) and this is named Highfield Street West. 48

49 243. I understand from the information submitted by the Culverden Community Committee that the Amuri Community Committee had indicated in 2010 that their preferences was for the ring road and parking area to be formally classed as road reserve. I understand this has not yet occurred, but as set out above the area is currently zoned Business which is in line with the current use and part of the area appears to be a formed legal road In my view, the submission has not presented sufficient information to conclude that an Open Space zoning of the area in question would be more appropriate. Recommendation 245. Retain Map F to show 27 Mountainview Road, Culverden as Business 1. 49

50 Gore Bay (Map G) Submission by Alastair Dickson Submission Submitter (submission no.) Alastair Dickson (31) Further submissions received No Site Address: 698P Gore Bay Road, Gore Bay Legal description: LOT 2 DP Current zoning Rural Requested zoning Residential 1 and extend the Gore Bay settlement boundary to include the site. Recommendation Reject 246. Alastair Dickson opposes the rural zoning of proposed Lots 1 to 4 under RC150025/ and requests that these are re-zoned from Rural to Residential 1, and the Settlement boundary of Gore Bay is extended to include this. Discussion 247. Resource consents RC (land use) and (subdivision) were for the subdivision of 698P Gore Bay Road into four lots along with land use consent to construct dwellings on each of the respective lots. The applications were received by the Council in March 2015, were notified, and the decision to grant the applications was released in September The submission phase of the PDP process was running concurrently, with the submission by Alastair Dickson received in July In terms of background information for the Hearings Panel, I note that the Buxton Valley Management Area is located to the rear of Gore Bay settlement. This is an Environment of Special Concern in the ODP with specific provisions to enable the establishment of 83 residential lots with grazing, conservation and recreation land uses. My understanding is that one of the features of this development is that dwellings will be clustered and have recessive building forms so that they are not intrusive in the landscape. While residential dwellings have been allowed as part of this, the creation of the Buxton Valley Management Area did not extend the urban boundary of Gore Bay settlement The submission by Alastair Dickson does not include reasoning for why the zoning of his site should be changed or the urban boundary amended With regard to the zoning, I note that the resource consent decision for RC150025/ acknowledged that the Rural zoning of the site should afford an open character to the site. The decision stated: the application proposed a number of mitigation measures to ensure that the proposal will as far as practical blend into the landscape and reduces visual impact. These include limiting dwelling footprints and building height, using roofing colours and cladding materials which are of a high recessive value and an extensive planting plan. Further, three of the four buildings are 50

51 tucked into the hillside facing away from the Gore Bay settlement and roading network so that they will not be able to be seen from existing developed areas, reserves or roads The built form and layout of the proposed dwellings was viewed to be appropriate mitigating factors to ensure the open character of the Rural Zone is maintained Policy 4.4 encourages development and use in the coastal settlements that protects and enhances the special character and environmental qualities of those settlements. While the resource consent decision determined that the character of the area would not be adversely affected, in my view, the extension of the urban boundary to contain one site that is located outside the existing cohesive shape of Gore Bay settlement would not be conducive to containing and managing the growth of the settlement. I consider the extension of the settlement to include this site would not be in accordance with Policy Based on the information submitted, I do not recommend that either the zoning is changed or the urban boundary of Gore Bay settlement is extended. Recommendation 254. Retain Map G to show 698P Gore Bay Road, Gore Bay as Residential 1 and outside the settlement boundary of Gore Bay. 51

52 Hanmer Springs (Map I) Submission by Shipley Submission Submitter (submission no.) Norman and Lesley Shipley (84) Further submissions received No Site Address: Jacks Pass Road, Hanmer Springs Legal description: SEC 83 SQ 82 ALSO SECS 47/48 BLK I LYNDON SURVEY DSITRICT Current zoning Rural Requested zoning Hanmer Springs Mixed Use Zone (new zoning) with underlying Residential 3 zoning. Recommendation Reject 255. Norman and Lesley Shipley request that their property on Jacks Pass Road, Hanmer Springs is rezoned from Rural to a new Hanmer Springs Mixed Use Zone which would apply to their site. The proposed Mixed Use Zone would provide for: - the holiday park activities to be able to develop and expand, subject to performance standards related to bulk, scale and location; - an underlying Residential 3 zoning (2000m 2 ) being applied to the site so that residential development is able to be pursued in the future. This would in effect extend the settlement boundary of Hanmer Springs The submission includes draft provisions comprising an objective, policies, permitted activity standards, a discretionary activity rule and a non-complying activity rule. Discussion 257. The property is located at the north end of Jacks Pass Road, beyond the existing ODP boundary of the settlement of Hanmer Springs. This boundary is proposed to remain unchanged under the PDP The existing site accommodates the Alpine Adventure Holiday Park which has visitor accommodation in the form of campsites, lodges and chalets. The holiday park covers approximately half the site with the remainder of the site being farmland with some vegetation In terms of background, the submitter s agent has met with Council Officers on two occasions to discuss the proposed Mixed Use Zone. The most recent occasion was in October 2015, when Council Officers advised that there were three significant problems with the proposal, these being: - the provisions presented would need to be supported by a section 32 analysis which could demonstrate that the proposal is the most appropriate for the site, including showing how servicing would work; - the disconnection of the site from the remainder of the township, and the site being located on the other side of the Industrial zone which does not promote consolidated development; 52

53 - the area is not identified as a development area in the Hanmer Springs Growth Management Strategy The Hanmer Springs Growth Management Strategy & Town Centre Development Plan was prepared in 2006 (refer to References/ Reports section of this report). In terms of defining the township, the strategy states that: The township is defined (or framed) by the wider landscape and a number of natural features which act as edge constraints. These include: the Basin hills and forest to the north and east and the prominent and distinctive landform of Conical Hill. (page 49) 261. The Shipley land is located to the north of the township, west of Conical Hill and is surrounded by forest land Section and Figure A1 of the strategy identify the land to the southeast of the Shipley land as potentially suitable for alpine lifestyle growth, as follows: In the areas of land located either side of Conical Hill, these areas link to existing residentially zoned land and are appropriate for some limited alpine lifestyle housing, sensitively planned and designed for north facing orientation and having regard to protection of visual amenity However, the Shipley land is outside the area referred to in the above. In my view, the strategy did not envisage that the Shipley land would become available for alpine lifestyle growth or any other residential growth I concur with the advice previously given by Council Officers that the site is disconnected from the remainder of the township. If the Mixed Use Zone was approved, the site would form an outlying piece of the township surrounded by Rural-zoned land and would not be connected to any existing residential zoning. In my view, this would lead to a fragmented urban boundary for Hanmer Springs township I therefore recommend that the Shipley land retains its Rural zoning. Recommendation 266. Retain Map I to show the Shipley land at Jacks Pass Road, Hanmer Springs (Section Block I Lyndon Survey District and Section 83 Square 82 Amuri) as Rural. Submission by Michael and Jane Malthus Submitter (submission no.) Michael and Jane Malthus (11) Further submissions received No Site Addresses and legal descriptions: 36 Jacks Pass Road: SEC 9 BLK X HANMER TSHIP IN BLK I LYNDON 38 Jacks Pass Road: RLU 1309 SEC 10 BLK X HANMER TSHIP 40 Jacks Pass Road: SEC 23 BLK X HANMER TSHIP 42 Jacks Pass Road: SEC 22 BLK X HANMER TSHIP 44 Jacks Pass Road: LOT 1 DP BLK I LYNDON SD Lots 4 and 5 at 44A Jacks Pass Road, Hanmer Springs: LOT 4 DP BLK I LYNDON SD Current zoning Residential 1H Requested zoning Terrace Residential overlay with underlying Residential 1H zoning. 53

54 Recommendation Accept Submission 267. Michael and Jane Malthus oppose the boundary of the Terrace Residential zone on Chisholm Crescent and request that this is amended to include the properties at 36, 38, 40, 42 and 44 Jacks Pass Road and Lots 4 and 5 at 44A Jacks Pass Road. Discussion 268. In terms of background, Lots 4 and 5 at 44A Jacks Pass Road form part of a 13 lot subdivision (RC140032) which saw the larger site at 46 Jacks Pass Road subdivided, creating a number of lots which are currently part of 44A Jacks Pass Road. These lots range in size from m 2. Once subdivision is complete these lots will become Oakview Close, with Lots 4 and 5 becoming 4 and 6 Oakview Close respectively As discussed under the Ambers Property Development Ltd submission, I consider that submission and this one by Michael and Jane Malthus to be somewhat different to the other submissions. The sites discussed in this submission are already zoned Residential 1H, which has a minimum lot area of 500m 2. As such, the principle of residential development for these sites (and the immediately surrounding area) is already established. Also, the request does not involve extending the settlement boundary of Hanmer Springs as the site is already located within the central part of the township, in close proximity to services and shops and are not disconnected from the township In my view, the core consideration of this submission is whether or not the Terrace Residential zoning is more appropriate for these sites than the existing Residential 1H zoning The Terrace Residential zoning has been in place since the ODP or one of the early plan changes and allows sites within this zone to have a 350m 2 minimum average lot area with a 250m 2 minimum lot area. The area to the immediate north and east of the sites in question, accessed by Chisholm Crescent, is zoned Terrace Residential and this is the only location in Hanmer Springs to have this zoning. It is my understanding that by originally introducing this zoning the Council was mindful of the need to provide higher density zoning in the centre of Hanmer Springs I consider that, in principle, the Terrace Residential zoning is an appropriate zoning for these sites, given that they are located in very close proximity to the town centre and are adjacent to the existing Terrace Residential zoning, thus extending an already existing spot zoning of this type However, I note that the Terrace Residential zone allows a minimum average lot area of 350m 2 with a minimum lot area of 250m 2. This means that a site with this zoning that is over 700m 2 in area (remembering that the driveway area serving a rear lot is not included in the lot size of the rear lot) could be divided into two 350m 2 lots. It is noted that while the Terrace Residential zoning does allow a minimum lot area of 250m 2, this would not be able to be utilised on a site of less than 700m 2 in area because this would not give the average lot area of 350m 2. 54

55 274. If the zoning change were to be approved, this means that the sites at 36, 38, 40 and 42 Jacks Pass Road could feasibly accommodate such a subdivision as a controlled activity. However the sites at 44 Jacks Pass Road and Lots 4 and 5 at 44A Jacks Pass Road could not accommodate such a subdivision as a controlled activity because they are all less than 700m 2. Such a proposal would become a non-complying activity which, generally speaking, would not be encouraged except in unique circumstances. However, I acknowledge that if the undersized lots were to be amalgamated that the intent of the zoning could be realised. As such, I consider there are two options for the Hearings Panel to consider for this proposal: - Option 1: rezone the sites at 36, 38, 40 and 42 Jacks Pass Road with the Terrace Residential overlay and exclude the sites at 44 Jacks Pass Road and Lots 4 and 5 at 44a Jacks Pass Road. This is because the intent of the Terrace Residential overlay is unable to be implemented for the excluded sites without some sort of amalgamation occurring. - Option 2: rezone all of the requested sites with the Terrace Residential overlay. This is because the intent of the Terrace Residential overlay subdivision in relation to 44 Jacks Pass Road and Lots 4 and 5 at 44A Jacks Pass Road could be realised if the sites were amalgamated. Furthermore, the re-zoning of all of the lots would provide a consistent boundary for the zone. Recommendation 275. That the zoning of the sites at 36, 38, 40, 42 and 44 Jacks Pass Road and Lots 4 and 5 at 44A Jacks Pass Road, Hanmer Springs are amended to Terrace Residential zoning. Submission by Alastair Crawford Submission Submitter (submission no.) Alastair Crawford (14) Further submissions received No Site Address: 88 Argelins Road, Hanmer Springs Legal description: SEC 1 SO BLKS I II LYNDON SD Current zoning Rural Requested zoning Residential Recommendation Reject 276. Alastair Crawford requests that 88 Argelins Road, Hanmer Springs is re-zoned from Rural to Residential, submitting that: It is not appropriate to continue to designate this land as rural as proposed in the H.D. Plan 2015 because it is now built out by residential subdivisions to the west and tourist structures to the east. It is harder to get stock and machinery on and off the section than before. This land area is a natural next place for residential development in Hanmer because it is close to the centre and within existing residential and commercial areas. Discussion 277. The property at 88 Argelins Road is located on the east side of Argelins Road, to the west of Hanmer Springs Road. The area to the immediate north is zoned Business under the ODP and 55

56 this zoning is proposed to remain unchanged under the PDP. The Queen Mary Hospital Historic Reserve is further to the north. The area to the immediate south is the St James Estate Outline Development Zone, which was approved for residential development through a plan change The Crawford family has approached the Council in the past regarding re-zoning this land. The site was most recently discussed at a Councillor workshop on 22 May 2014, with the following information presented by Council Officers for discussion: In a similar situation to the Harrison land, there is a block of land within the Hanmer urban area that retains a Rural zoning (See Appendix 2). The owner of that land has approached Council, requesting a Residential zoning, potentially with the opportunity to develop a retirement complex. While there are many similarities to the Harrison land, the identified fault lines through the Hanmer township cross the northern part of this site. Good planning practice, along with the Regional Policy Statement and RMA, strongly encourage the avoidance of development in known natural hazard areas, such as on fault lines. The owner of the site, aside from making the request, has not provided any particular documentation to Council. In the first instance, it is the recommendation of staff that the site not be re-zoned through the District Plan review process, particularly in the absence of specific reporting identifying the faults more precisely and developing agreed zonings and mechanisms by which the public can be reasonably protected in the event of movement of those faults. Overall, despite the outward logic of treating this land similarly to the Harrison land, the different natural hazard position suggests a different response The following outcome was recorded as a result of this Councillor Workshop: Inform landowner that an examination of the fault lines must be conducted, and additional information regarding the development must be provided. Alternatively they can lodge a Private Plan Change request As part of the submission made for the PDP, no information has been presented regarding an examination of the fault lines or additional information regarding a proposed development. In my view, I consider that the areas of concern raised by the Council in May 2014 have not been examined or addressed In terms of the policy context, Policy 4.1 requires appropriate infrastructure to be provided, and the potential effects of natural hazards to be avoided. Policy 4.25 is as follows: To enable subdivision, land development and other activities on the rural land bounded by Argelins Road, Queen Mary Centre grounds and the St James Estate residential area that maintains or enhances the area s landscape, conservation, amenity values while recognizing the fault hazard present on the site In my view, this policy reiterates what has been previously advised to the Crawford family. 56

57 283. With regard to the Hanmer Springs Growth Strategy, section identifies the site as Area 6 (refer to Figures A1 and 18 of the strategy), which is the former Crawford Reserve. The following extracts from the growth strategy are relevant: Growth management recommendations: Retain the northern portion of area 6 as open space to form an outer periphery to the adjoining Business zone, with southern areas for residential development. This is recommended on an axial grid, in a formal layout incorporating generous road reserve allowance, to promote a character and density of development similar to the colonial residential area (at approximately 6-8 dwellings per ha), acknowledging also the historic associations of the area to an earlier Hanmer Springs. Rationale: Area 6 is rural land with pleasant open space and amenity values. Formerly part of the Queen Mary Hospital farm, the northern part of this area is significant as the future edge and open space periphery to the central Business zone, acknowledging also limitations for development due to earthquake faulting aligned east-west through the northern part of the property. (This faulting system also extends to areas well beyond area 6 also to the east and west; refer District Plan maps). Functionally the area would complement the recommended extended open space frame to the town centre within the eastern segment to Area 4. A detailed master plan should be prepared for Area 6 to assist assessment and protection of open space values, and understanding of natural hazard constraints In my view, both Policies 4.1 and 4.25 of the PDP and the Hanmer Springs Growth Strategy clearly indicate that the Crawford land may be suitable for residential use, subject to the natural hazard issue being addressed. The growth strategy is more specific in that it sets out that the southern portion of the Crawford land may be suitable for residential use with the northern portion as an open space buffer. However, both the PDP and the growth strategy are clear in that they acknowledge the limitations caused by the natural hazard fault line running through the site, which have not been addressed in the submission. I therefore recommend that the zoning remain unchanged, and reiterate the need for investigation into options of how this can be appropriately managed for proposed residential use. Recommendation 285. Retain Map I to show 88 Argelins Road, Hanmer Springs as Rural. 57

58 Hawarden (Map J) Submission by Victoria Hutson Submission Submitter (submission no.) Victoria Hutson (1) Further submissions received No Site Address: 1 High Street, Hawarden Legal description: LOT 1 DP GLADSTONE SUBDIVISION BLK VII WAIPARA SD Current zoning Business 1 Requested zoning Residential 1 Recommendation Reject 286. Victoria Hutson requests that the site at 1 High Street, Hawarden is changed from Business 1 to Residential 1. The reason for the request for the zoning change is given as: with the current zoning this affects my borrowing powers with the bank. This property was purchased as a family home. There is plenty of business zoned land available in Hawarden. Discussion 287. The site at 1 High Street is located on the north side of High Street, east of the intersection with Horsley Down Road, Allandale Road and O Carrolls Road which is the main intersection in Hawarden. The sites to the east and west of 1 High Street are also zoned Business 1. The sites to the north of 1 High Street are zoned Residential Most of the residential area in Hawarden is zoned Residential 1, with a small part in the southeastern part of the town zoned Residential 3. An area surrounding the central intersection is zoned Business 1, and there is also some Business 1-zoned land at the northern and southern ends of the town In terms of the ODP, residential dwellings are permitted on Business-zoned sites. There are already dwellings on a number of the Business-zoned sites in Hawarden. Some of these were probably present before the ODP was in place and so would have existing use rights and some would have been established as permitted activities under the ODP. Under the PDP it is not proposed to change any of the zonings in Hawarden, so erecting a dwelling in the Business 1 zone (such as at this site) would remain a permitted activity I recommend that the Business 1 zoning at 1 High Street, Hawarden remains in place for the following reasons: retaining the Business 1 zone means a more flexible zoning as either a business or residential use is permitted. While the site currently accommodates a dwelling, in the future the use may change to a business use. The flexibility of the Business zone allows the market to determine what the best use of a site is at any given time. Further to this, while a business use is what is expected on the site through the zoning, the proposed zoning does not mean that the residential activity cannot continue. 58

59 291. Each section of Business-zoned land in Hawarden forms a contiguous zone with the intention that businesses are clustered in these zones, with these generally being located in the centre of the settlement. In my view, if one site within the Business zone on the northern side of High Street was changed to a residential zone, this could lead to a fragmented approach to zoning. Policy 4.2 of the PDP sets out that zoning should provide opportunities for adaptation and consolidated development. In my view, changing the zoning of one site would not achieve consolidation The submitter puts forward that they consider there is plenty of Business-zoned land in Hawarden. In my view, an examination of whether there is too much Business-zoned land in Hawarden would be better considered by reviewing the zoning in Hawarden as a whole. As discussed in the introduction to this report, the District Plan Review process has not included a review of the settlement boundaries or the current zoning of land and it would be up to the Council to determine whether this was pursued. I consider there would be benefit to undertaking such a review. Recommendation 293. Retain Map J to show 1 High Street, Hawarden as Business 1. 59

60 Leithfield (Map L) Submission by Brian Ward Submission Submitter (submission no.) Brian Ward (33) Further submissions received Anthony Wills further submitted in support of Brian Ward s submission. Site Address: Leithfield settlement Current zoning Leithfield has a mix of Residential 1 and Residential 3 zoning. Requested zoning Revise the urban boundary of Leithfield to accommodate expansion over the next 10 years. Recommendation Reject 294. Brian Ward submits that the PDP: does not seem to cater for additional rural-residential or sections in existing small towns/ villages. This applies especially to Leithfield where most of the land zoned for these uses has already been developed. The higher levels of Leithfield (up on the Terrace) would be a logical expansion should the anticipated sea level rises or other floods be considered Brian Ward requests that a new zoning map be prepared showing revised boundaries for the expansion of Leithfield village over the next 10 years. Discussion 296. As discussed previously, the PDP has not involved an examination of the settlement boundaries. As such, the settlement boundary of Leithfield and the zoning within the settlement are not proposed to change With regard to the issue of sea level rise and flooding, I note that Chapter 15 of the PDP has proposed rules regarding the development or extension of dwellings located within hazard zones. I consider the issue of whether Leithfield settlement should be extended needs to consider the natural hazard issues. In my view, there is merit to exploring the issues raised by Brian Ward, however this should be part of a wider strategic review undertaken by the Council. I therefore do not recommend that the zoning or settlement boundary of Leithfield is changed based on the submission as presented Recommendation 298. Retain Map L to show the zoning and settlement boundary of Leithfield unchanged. Submission by Anthony Wills Submitter (submission no.) Anthony Wills (104) Further submissions received No Site Address: 22 Mill Road, Leithfield Legal description: PT R S LEITHFIELD TSHIP BLK IX TEVIOTDALE SD Current zoning Residential 3 60

61 Requested zoning Residential 1 Recommendation Reject Submission 299. Anthony Wills requests that 22 Mill Road is re-zoned from Residential 3 to Residential 1A. Anthony Wills submits that this will facilitate a subdivision to create smaller lots which can accommodate independent senior living units on part of the site (as per Rule in the PDP), while also providing further development of sections of approximately 700m 2, as is applicable in surrounding areas of Leithfield township (for example, 6 and 8 Dover Street). Anthony Wills submits that all services that the Council provides are already provided to the street boundary of 22 Mill Road, and that such a development will not have any detrimental effects on adjacent land owners or surrounding properties, but will enhance the area. Discussion 300. For clarification, I note that the Residential 1A zone is an Amberley-specific zone so this would not be available to be applied to Leithfield. Residential 1 and 1A have the same density zoning, this being a minimum lot area of 400m 2 and a minimum average lot area of 700m 2. I have assessed the submission as a request to re-zone the land as Residential The site at 22 Mill Road, Leithfield is located on the eastern edge of Leithfield and the settlement boundary runs through the site. The site is currently zoned Residential 3. The site is just over 2ha in area, for which the PDP anticipates subdivision down to 2000m 2, through a consenting process The area of Leithfield which has Residential 1 zoning is the central part of Leithfield, whereas the site at 22 Mill Road is on the eastern edge of the settlement. The site is predominantly located within the settlement boundary and already has a residential zoning Policy 4.1 requires residential developments to be served with appropriate levels of infrastructure and for potential natural hazards to be considered, and I note that this site is located within a Flood Assessment Zone. In my view, the submission does not present sufficient justification as to why the higher density of a Residential 1 zoning would be more appropriate on this site. I think that this would be better considered as part of a strategic review of Leithfield which would examine, among other things, the cohesiveness of the settlement and whether higher density residential zoning is appropriate. Recommendation 304. Retain Map L to show 22 Mill Road, Leithfield as Residential 3. 61

62 Waikari Submission by CDHB and Hurunui District Council Submission Submitter (submission no.) Canterbury District Health Board (76) and Hurunui District Council (106) Further submissions received No Site Address: Part of Waikari Hospital site Legal description: Lot RS Current zoning Currently has no zoning Requested zoning Business 1 Recommendation Accept 305. CDHB requests that the zoning for the Waikari Hospital site is amended to Business 1 zone for the whole site, including lot RS On the notified version of the PDP lot RS has no zoning, but the rest of the hospital has Business 1 zoning The lack of zoning on this site was an error that was also picked up by Council Officers during the PDP submission period and formed part of the Council s submission. The Council submission states that the lack of zoning for this site is an anomaly and that the most appropriate zoning for this parcel is Business 1 as the adjoining sites are also zoned Business 1. Discussion 307. The ODP has a General Management (now the Rural Zone in the PDP) zoning for this site despite it being within the urban boundary, and I understand that this was an anomaly that was picked up when it was replicated in the PDP, hence the submissions regarding this. In my view, the most appropriate zoning is Business 1 which is the zoning of the remainder of the hospital site. This would form a contiguous area of Business 1 zoned land on this site. Recommendation 308. Amend Map R to show the land parcel Lot RS as Business 1. 62

63 Waipara Submission by Daniel Shand Submission Submitter (submission no.) Daniel Shand (54) Further submissions received No Site Address: 54 Glenmark Drive, Waipara Legal description: LOT 1 DP BLK I TEVIOTDALE SD SUBJ TO & INT IN R/W Current zoning Industrial Requested zoning Mix of Industrial, Residential 1 and Business 1 Recommendation Reject 309. Daniel Shand requests that the southern part of the site at 54 Glenmark Drive is re-zoned from Industrial to a mix of Residential and Business. Daniel Shand submits that the current Industrial zoning reflects the historic use of the site and the proposed zoning changes would better reflect the current changes happening in Waipara. The request proposes to change the southern end of the site to Residential, this being the part of the site that adjoins the existing Residential zone. The part of the site that adjoins the rear of 56 and 58 Glenmark Drive is proposed to be Business 1 zone, leaving the remainder of the site with the current zoning of Industrial. Discussion 310. The proposed Industrial zoning of the site at 54 Glenmark Drive is consistent with the zoning in the ODP. My understanding is that the Industrial zoning for this site and the sites to the north developed as a result of the historical use of the sites in relation to the rail corridor. Residential development then established around the rail corridor and the site has continued to be used for railway purposes. This is why today there is industrial zoned land located immediately adjacent to residential zoned land. Typically, good planning practice would be to have a buffer zone of, for example, light commercial or retail located in between industrial and residential land Notwithstanding this, another characteristic of Waipara is that the township has developed with Business 1 zoned land concentrated at the northern and southern ends of the town. In my view, creating a spot zoning of Business 1 zoned land at this site away from the existing Business 1 zoned land would lead to fragmented zoning of the Business 1 land within Waipara. Further to this, the creation of Business 1 zoning adjacent to Residential 1 zoning could lead to reverse sensitivity effects from a potential business use that may not be compatible with neighbouring residential use. I acknowledge that that if the existing use of the Industrial-zoned land were to change from the current railway use to a more intensive (but permitted) industrial use that this could also lead to reverse sensitivity effects. However, the owners of the adjacent residential land have purchased these properties knowing that this is the case. For these reasons I would not encourage such fragmentation and therefore recommend that the request to re-zone part of the site to Business 1 land is rejected With regard to the request to re-zone the southern portion of the site to Residential 1, I agree that this would be a suitable zone for the southern part of the site. In terms of reverse sensitivity effects, residential use has already been established in the immediate vicinity and any 63

64 future purchasers of the land would be aware of the established neighbouring industrial use. Access to new residential lots could be provided directly onto Glenmark Drive. In my view, the re-zoning of the southern part of the site from Industrial to Residential 1 would be appropriate in principle. However, due to the site s former use as a railway yard it is listed on the Council s HAIL records as being potentially contaminated. As with the Culverden site that has already been discussed, this site would need to be investigated to determine if it is appropriate for residential development, in line with the policies in Chapters 4 and 18. It would also need to be demonstrated that the site can served with appropriate levels of infrastructure On balance, I do not recommend that the southern part of the site is zoned Residential 1, but recognise that this may be demonstrated to be an appropriate use following investigation of the potentially contaminated land. Recommendation 314. Retain Map S to show 54 Glenmark Drive, Waipara as Industrial. 64

65 Other map changes 315. The following changes to maps were requested by HDC in their submission, some of which are minor in nature. For ease of reference I have analysed these in one table. Requested zoning Reason sought Recommendation Map A and legend for Settlements maps - request to add the outline development plan line identified in Figure 1.0 to Map A and add a key to the Legend Urban under the title Outline Development Zones (ODZ) called Amberley (Residential 3) ODZ. HDC submit there is a rule in Chapter 4 Settlements which refers to the Outline Development Plan Area at Amberley as well as suggested rules in Chapter 5 Subdivision, and request this area is identified on the map to ensure the application of the rules is clearer and more certain. I recommend accepting this change because, in my view, it will improve Plan readability and ensure the application of the relevant rules is clear to Plan users. Map D that the parcel identified as Sec 1 SO on Map D, be zoned Open Space. Map M that the parcels identified Part RES 4647 SO 17940, Part of Part RES 4647 SO 17941, Part Section 1 SO SO and Part RES 4124 on Map M, be zoned Open Space. Map R that the parcels identified as Part RS 7540, Part Res 1144, Part RS and Part 9784 on Map R, be zoned Open Space. Map S that the parcel identified as Part Section 1 Waipara TNSP SO 8508 on Map S, be zoned Residential 1. Maps 14, 19, 21 and 22 and legend for Rural maps that maps 21 and 22 be removed, HDC submit the area identified as Sec 1 SO on Map D has no zoning in the Cheviot Urban Management Area. HDC submit this is an anomaly and request the zoning for this parcel is changed to Open Space, which they consider most appropriate. HDC submit the areas identified as Part RES 4647 SO 17940, Part of Part RES 4647 SO 17941, Part Section 1 SO SO have no zoning in the Leithfield Beach Urban Management Area and Part of Part RES 4124 on Map M is zoned Residential 1 when part of that parcel is zoned Open Space. HDC consider these to be anomalies and request these parcels are zoned Open Space to create consistency with the zoning in the Leithfield Beach Urban Management Area. (This has affected the settlement boundary slightly and the extra part of Part RES 4647 will be included in the settlement Boundary.) HDC submit the areas identified as Part RS 7540, Part Res 1144, Part RS and Part 9784 on Map R have no zoning in the Waikari Urban Management Area. HDC submit this is an anomaly and request this is zoned Open Space because this area is used as a walkway. HDC submit the area identified as Part Section 1 Waipara TNSP SO 8508 (D35) on Map S has no zoning in the Waipara Management Area. HDC submit this is an anomaly and request this is zoned Residential 1 because the adjoining sites are also zoned Residential 1. HDC submit the current structure of the Plan is likely to create confusion as Boyle Village (Map 21) and Engineers Camp (Map 22) are in the Rural Map The ODP also had no zoning for this site. I recommend Open Space zoning is applied to this site as I understand it is used for recreation purposes and I therefore consider this to be the most appropriate zoning. The ODP zoning for this site was General Management, despite the site being within the urban boundary. I recommend Open Space zoning is applied to these sites for the reasons set out in the submission. The ODP zoning for this site was General Management, despite the site being within the urban boundary. I recommend Open Space zoning is applied to these sites for the reasons set out in the submission. The ODP zoning for this site was General Management, despite the site being within the urban boundary. I recommend Residential 1 zoning is applied to these sites for the reasons set out in the submission. I recommend this change is accepted as this will provide 65

66 that the identification of Engineers Camp be removed from map 14 and the identification of Boyle Village be removed from map 19. It is also sought that the Rural Index be amended to remove the references to map 21 Boyle Village and map 22 Engineers Camp. Consequential changes to the Rural Legend are also required as a result. Urban Areas Index and legend for Urban Map Series that the reference to Urban Areas, Urban Boundary and Urban in the Urban Areas Index and the Urban Legend be replaced with Settlements. Series with a boundary around these areas identified in the legend as Settlement Boundary. HDC submit that it may be assumed that because Boyle Village and Engineers Camp are identified within a Settlement Boundary that any associated rules for these areas would be contained in the Settlements chapter, however rules related to these areas are contained in the Rural chapter. HDC submits the reference to Settlement Boundary creates unnecessary confusion and it is suggested that this be removed to ensure the application of the Plan is clearer and more certain. As a result of the removal of the settlement boundary, HDC submit that maps 21 and 22 do not show any additional information to that contained in maps 14 and 19 and it is requested that maps 21 and 22 are removed. HDC submit that the PDP does not have an urban chapter or urban rules. Such rules and the chapter are referred to as Settlements. HDC request changing the reference in the maps to Settlements, submitting that this will provide consistency with the rest of the Plan and also make it clearer for users of the Plan. consistency between the chapters, general terminology and the maps in the PDP, improving general readability. I recommend this change is accepted as this will provide consistency between the chapters, general terminology and the maps in the PDP, improving general readability. 66

67 4 References/ Reports Please note: apart from the documents attached as appendices, the documents referenced below are available at the Hurunui District Council offices and website. Population Trends and Projections by Opus International Consultants Ltd, September Schedule 1 feedback from Ngāi Tahu letter dated 5 February Attached as Appendix 1. Council response to Schedule 1 feedback from Ngāi Tahu letter dated 12 March Attahced as Appendix 2. Minutes from 16 April 2015 Council meeting, prepared by Hurunui District Council. Fire Prevention Bylaw 2008, prepared by Hurunui District Council. Discussion document and minutes from 22 May 2014 Council Workshop, prepared by Hurunui District Council. Hanmer Springs Growth Management Strategy & Town Centre Development Plan prepared by N M Associates Ltd; T J Day & Associates Ltd and Drakeford Williams Ltd, July Hanmer Springs and Woodbank Roads District Plan Change Application by Cardno TCB, January 2010 reproduced by Hurunui District Council in the Section 32 Evaluation Report for the Proposed District Plan. Further Information on Engineering Serviceability, Woodbank Road Private Plan Change by E2 Environmental Ltd, 22 January 2013 reproduced by Hurunui District Council in the Section 32 Evaluation Report for the Proposed District Plan. Odour Assessment for Hanmer Springs Plan Change Application by Golder Associates, November 2012 reproduced by Hurunui District Council in the Section 32 Evaluation Report for the Proposed District Plan. Peer review of the Odour Assessment for the Hanmer springs Plan change Application by MacQuarrie Holdings Limited by Specialist Environmental Services Ltd, 29 August 2014 reproduced by Hurunui District Council in the Section 32 Evaluation Report for the Proposed District Plan. Hurunui Reserves Management Plan 2012, prepared by Hurunui District Council. 67

68 Appendix 1 68

69 5 February 2015 The Chief Executive Officer Hurunui District Council PO Box 13 Amberley 7441 Attention: Judith Batchelor Tēnā koe RE: Proposed Hurunui District Plan Review: Schedule 1 Response Thank you for the opportunity to provide a response to the proposed Hurunui District Plan (the proposed plan) under Schedule 1 to the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu (Te Rūnanga) is the iwi authority that represents those who hold mana whenua over the areas under the jurisdiction of Hurunui District Council under the Te Rūnanga o Ngai Tahu Act 1996 (s15). Under that Act, Te Rūnanga is required to consult with papatipu rūnanga when forming its views on matters as the iwi authority and Te Rūnanga supports papatipu rūnanga taking the lead on matters specific to their rohe. Te Rūnanga appreciates the opportunities the Council has provided for representatives of Te Ngāi Tūāhuriri Rūnanga and Te Rūnanga o Kaikōura as the papatipu rūnanga to attend Council workshops and participate in the plan development process. The matters raised in this letter represent the views of papatipu rūnanga supported by Te Rūnanga. They are intended to further incorporate Ngāi Tahu values in the management of natural and physical resources in the Hurunui District and to further foster the collaborative relationship that is developing between the Council, papatipu rūnanga and Te Rūnanga in these matters. Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu 50 Corsair Drive, Wigram, Christchurch 8042 PO Box , Christchurch, New Zealand Phone , 0800 KAI TAHU info@ngaitahu.iwi.nz Website:

70 The matters are outlined, by topic, below. For ease of reference we have endeavoured to follow the chapter order of the proposed plan. At this stage we have focussed on topic areas (issues and outcomes) more than word-smithing rules, but we have suggested wording in some cases. 1. Introduction We suggest additional information be added to the first introductory section which outline: - The geographic area of the Hurunui District and the proposed plan; - It s population, predominant land uses and settlements; and - Acknowledgement that those of Ngāi Tahu descent hold mana whenua in the district and their interests are represented through Te Ngāi Tūāhuriri Rūnanga and Te Rūnanga o Kaikōura. The section should outline the Council s statutory duties to Ngāi Tahu as the Treaty Partner of the Crown, under the RMA. Such information provides a lead in to other material in Section 1 Introduction and Section 2 Ngai Tahu Resource Management Values. 1.3 Relationship with Other Plans and Policy Documents We ask that this section recognise the duty to take into account any iwi management plan in the preparation of or any change to a district plan under s74(2a) of the RMA. We ask that the applicable iwi management plans be named, including Te Poha O Tohu Raumati (Te Rūnanga o Kaikōura Iwi Management Plan) and Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan (the Iwi Management Plan for Te Ngāi Tūāhuriri Rūnanga).The duty to take into account is a relatively strong legal requirement and as such these iwi management plans should have some influence in shaping the proposed plan. Paragraph 3 of this section states a district plan must not conflict with.... The Council may wish to alter this statement to must not be inconsistent with, to use the words set out in s75(4) of the RMA. 2. Chapter 2 - Ngai Tahu Values We support the proposed plan framework that includes an introductory chapter on Ngāi Tahu values with those values then incorporated into the general plan provisions rather than a separate chapter of Ngai Tahu objectives and policies. However, we think there is still a place

71 for a general objective and policy that reflect the relationship which the Council and Ngai Tahu aspire to in managing the natural and physical resources of the District. New Objective X - Ngai Tahu/Mana Whenua Ngāi Tahu s relationship with the land, freshwater and coastal resources of the Hurunui District and Ngāi Tahu values in natural resource management are recognised and provided for in the future development of the Hurunui District. New Policies Ngai Tahu has a role in decision-making on the future development of the Hurunui District. Ngai Tahu is able to exercise kaitiakitanga in the management of natural and physical resources in the Hurunui District. We support the general tenor of the information in Chapter 2, but raise three key issues. Firstly, the chapter creates an impression that Ngāi Tahu values and interests in resource management in the district are limited to the recognition and protection of historically significant sites. Historic sites and areas are a fundamental tenant of Ngāi Tahu values in resource management but Ngāi Tahu values and interests are much broader. Ngāi Tahu has both an historic and contemporary relationship with all natural and physical resources in the district. Ngāi Tahu are users of natural resources, but to a code of cultural and environmental ethics; and the contemporary management and development of the district s land and other resources is of much interest to Ngāi Tahu. We suggest a new section be added to this chapter to identify key resource management issues for Ngāi Tahu. These issues include: - The integrated management of land and waterways, including ensuring townships and settlements have appropriate infrastructure to avoid the discharge of sewage and stormwater directly into waterways. - Maintaining or improving access to mahinga kai, waterways, the coast and other culturally important areas. - The ability to provide traditional and contemporary housing, commercial and community resources for Ngāi Tahu on land held by Ngāi Tahu and the development of Ngāi Tahu s substantive land holdings within the Hurunui District.

72 - Recognising the vital importance of soil and fresh water resources to the District s economic, social, cultural and environmental well-being and ensuring those resources are used efficiently and with consideration to environmental impacts and the needs of future generations. - Identification and management of the coastal environment, including those areas within the jurisdiction of the district plan. - Management of indigenous vegetation and habitats of indigenous fauna so these areas are regarded as assets to be preserved. - The recognition and protection of sites and areas of cultural significance to Ngāi Tahu both historic and contemporary. - The protection of wāhi tapu from disturbance Secondly, the chapter states that Ngai Tahu s framework for managing natural resources is known as kaitiakitanga. This statement may be quite correct if one understands kaitiakitanga as Ngāi Tahu understands it. However, kaitiakitanga is given a much narrower definition in s2 of the RMA, and is a matter to have particular regard to in s7 rather than a system of natural resource management more akin to the definition of sustainable management in s5(2). Therefore, we believe further explanation is needed. Thirdly, Areas of Statutory Acknowledgment need now to be incorporated directly into the district plan provisions. Areas of Statutory Acknowledgment are identified in the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998 (NTCSA), with a duty on regional and district councils to consider potential effects on Ngāi Tahu from activities within these areas (s220). However under the NTCSA they have a limited lifespan; the notion being that local authorities will incorporate the recognition and protection of these area into their regional or district plans on review. We note a spelling mistake on page 2-4; Waiau Au should be Waiauha 3. Protection of Sites of Importance to Ngāi Tahu Geopreservation sites We have considered the list of geopreservation sites and would prefer that this list is retained as the sites contribute to Cultural Landscapes and the legibility of the landscape for Ngāi Tahu. Cultural Landscapes

73 Ngāi Tahu seek recognition of cultural landscapes within the proposed plan. Ngāi Tahu cultural association with land and water operates at two different levels; site specific and overarching. Te Ngāi Tūāhuriri and Kaikōura Rūnanga believe that there are two kinds of cultural landscapes in this district; historic, and contemporary. Historic landscapes are associated with areas which are linked to whakapapa or where important events or settlement occurred in the past; e.g. historic trails or pa sites. Contemporary landscapes may have whakapapa and historic associations but they are also part of the tribe s current and future economic and social activities, including important waterways and land areas. Chapter 12, Policy of the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement (CRPS) provides for local authorities to set out objectives, policies and methods for the management of landscapes which have historic cultural or historic heritage values. We suggest a general objective and policy, linked to a schedule of cultural landscapes. It is not intended that a cultural landscape overlay would be a cumbersome responsibility for landholders but rather that it would assist landholders to understand the importance of the area and how they can best manage activities. We envisage any rules would be specific to the values in each cultural landscape and therefore only manage an activity which is likely to affect those values, not catch-all rules. We would also like provision included in the proposed plan to enable landowners to be exempt from the rules where they have an agreed management plan with Ngāi Tahu for the cultural landscape area and the activity is being undertaken in accordance with that plan. Chapter 4 Settlements Ngāi Tahu Settlement Ngāi Tahu requests that within the proposed plan a framework is set out within an objective and policies to enable housing for Ngāi Tahu whānui. There are past settlements of Ngai Tahu and their ancestors at Hanmer Springs, at the mouth of the Conway River Tūtae Putaputa, and at the Waipara River mouth. While these sites are not appropriate for modern settlement, Ngāi Tahu would like the plan to include provision for the development of a settlement in accordance with tikanga Maori on land held by Ngai Tahu within the District. We suggest a policy and rule framework for a mana whenua zone which can be applied by way of a plan change to suitable land in the future. This reflects similar provisions being sought in the Christchurch Replacement District Plan and we believe would achieve Objective 4 of the proposed plan. Provisions Add a new policy

74 Enable land identified as being within a Contemporary Cultural Landscape Area to be rezoned, developed and used for residential, commercial and community facilities in accordance with tikanga Māori and kaitiakitanga, provided all of the following matters can be adequately addressed: i. Any risk to people or property from land inundation, erosion, seismic disturbance or other natural hazards; ii. The provision of appropriate infrastructure to serve the development and any adverse effects on existing infrastructure; iii. The provision of an outline development plan showing how the land shall be developed, buildings and facilities designed and serviced; and iv. Any adverse effects on surrounding properties, surrounding activities or natural, cultural, or heritage values of the site or area. Amend Policy 4.2 and 4.7 to add provision for new development in accordance with the policy above, and any other consequential amendments needed to the proposed plan. Stormwater and Wastewater It is a core and fundamental principle of Ngai Tahu natural resource management that contaminants are not discharged into water without passing through land or artificial wetlands for treatment. Ngāi Tahu would like to see the discharge of untreated wastewater and stormwater to water identified as an issue under section 4.2 and policies and rules to provide for both: i. Ensuring any new residential or commercial development is serviced with wastewater and stormwater infrastructure that meets this requirement from the outset; and ii. Infrastructure in existing townships and settlements is progressively upgraded to meet this standard. Te Rūnanga o Kaikoura is particularly concerned that the discharge of untreated sewage into the Chatterton River from the township of Hammer Springs ceases as soon as possible and the future development of the township is contingent on having some form of land or artificial wetland treatment of sewage prior to discharge.

75 Chapter 6 Access to Rivers, Lakes and Riparian Margins We support the recognition within this chapter that Ngāi Tahu need to access waterways in Issue 6, though we think the issue should recognise that access is fundamental for mahinga kai which is a matter which must be recognised and provided for in s6(e) of the RMA. Most areas where Ngai Tahu wish to seek better access to lakes or rivers are not areas where access will be provided through esplanade reserves or strips under the RMA. They are often in rural areas, in some cases the landholders have ad medium fillum boundaries, and even if access is provided along the waterway there is not always public legal access from the road to the esplanade reserve. There are currently some instances where access is under informal agreement with private landowners, but this arrangement is uncertain if the property changes hands. Ngāi Tahu suggests access to waterways may be better provided through the development of an access strategy which should identify a variety of tools and mechanisms, including those under both the RMA and Local Government Act. Resulting provisions can then be included in the proposed plan where appropriate. We have the following comments on the current provisions: I. Objective 6.1 we question if this objective can be achieved as currently worded as any provisions for public access where compensation must be paid or works performed is likely to involve a significant cost to the wider community; II. Objective 6.1 should recognise that access to some areas may not be appropriate due to ecological or cultural sensitivity.. III. The provisions should acknowledge and affirm those landholders who provide access voluntarily to specific groups or the wider community. IV. The provisions could acknowledge that in many instances full public access all year round may not be necessary or desirable to meet the need for access eg mahinga kai, V. We support the identification of priority areas for access such as listed in Schedule 6.1, but it isn t clear on what basis the priority is set and what is meant by marginal protection. Some key waterways appear to be missing, including access from Loch Katrine to Lake Sumner.

76 Rewrite Objective 6.1 to read: Safe and practicable access is provided for the public or specific community groups to areas of ecological, recreational, cultural, scientific, scenic or amenity value while respecting the rights and responsibilities of landowners. Add New Policies that read: To develop an access strategy to identify the key access requirements of people and communities in the District to waterways, the coast and other sites or areas of value, and to establish efficient and effective methods to facilitate access where appropriate. To facilitate access for Ngāi Tahu to areas for mahinga kai. To acknowledge the goodwill of many landholders who provide informal access for community groups or the wider public through their properties to waterbodies or other sites of interest, and to recognise such arrangements as part of the District s access strategy. Chapter 10 - Freshwater We support district plans including some provisions relating to freshwater. Even though this matter is largely within the functions of regional councils under the RMA, we believe there is a role for district plans in managing the integrated management of land uses and freshwater and in ensuring land developments do not adversely affect water bodies, including through requirements for water supplies or the disposal of stormwater and wastewater. We have the following suggestions in relation to this chapter: i Introduction - should include a paragraph on the importance of wai/water to Ngāi Tahu. In particular, the role that rivers, lakes and wetlands have played as food sources for Ngāi Tahu for over 47 generations which is why Ngāi Tahu do not see rivers as conduits for waste or wetlands as swamps to be drained. ii Issues - issues 1 an 2 as they are currently worded do not describe resource management issues but rather the statutory duties of the district council in managing natural resources under the RMA. iii Issues issue 3 incorrectly refers to kaitiakitanga as a use or value of water which may conflict with other values. Kaitiakitanga is the management of natural resources managing the competing uses and values. Mahinga kai is one of those values and should be listed in Issue 3.

77 iv Issues add a new issue acknowledging the potential for land development to affect freshwater resources through demands for drinking or stock water and the discharge of wastewater and stormwater. v. Objective 10.1 the objective appears to reflect more regional council functions under the RMA. An alternative may be to rewrite the objective to focus on the integrated management of land uses with effects on freshwater which would better reflect the district council functions. vi. Policy this policy does not appear to offer a direction, rather it simply repeats the balance of matters required under s5. vii. Policies 10.2 & 10.3 we support a policy to provide for Ngāi Tahu s relationship with freshwater but Policy 10.2 does not offer direction. We have a similar comment on Policy viii. Policy 10.4 we support this policy but suggest adding reference to the cultural values of the geothermal resources. ix. Rules the rules do not appear to relate to the policies and there does not appear to be any policy direction that would justify Rule in its current form. x. Assessment Criteria there is no provision under the RMA to include Assessment Criteria in a plan (s75) and it is unclear how they apply to a fully discretionary activity. Is the intent that the rule is a restricted discretionary activity and these are matters of discretion? Chapter 11 Landscape The introduction on p.11-1 states that in preparing an Outstanding Landscape Report in 2014, the Council considered the value of landscapes to tangata whenua. Ngāi Tahu values (which presumably is the same as tangata whenua values) are also referred to in Policy We are not clear which Ngāi Tahu values are considered to contribute to an Outstanding Landscape under s6(b) of the RMA and the overlap between that and what may be constituted a cultural landscape under the CRPS. Policy 11.7 is to provide for Ngāi Tahu input into the decision-making process on the management of Outstanding Landscapes and Natural Features. It is unclear what this means and how it may differ from Ngāi Tahu input into any other resource management decisionmaking. Chapter 12 - Coastal Environment Section 12.1 Introduction should have a paragraph discussing the significance of the coastal environment to Ngāi Tahu and acknowledging traditional pa sites at the mouths of Tutae Putaputa (Conway) and Waipara rivers.

78 12.2 Issues Ngai Tahu s interest in the coastal environment is not confined to effects on cultural sites as suggested in Issue 4. The coast itself is an area of immense cultural significance and issues include: Integrated management of the land, sea and freshwater environments as they meet at the coats, including hapua. Protection of coastal areas from inappropriate land use and development, including subdivision and the protection of amenity values and the character of coastal areas. Protection and recognition of customary rights and access for and consumption of mahinga kai Appropriate stormwater and sewage disposal associated with the establishment and new development in coastal areas and the impact of sedimentation on coastal waters from land development. Protection of wāhi tapu, Impacts of buildings on coastal skyline and landscape. The Kaikoura (Te Tai-o-Marokura) Marine Management Bill 2014 was signed into law as an Act of Parliament on Wednesday 6th August This Marine Management Bill seeks to give effect to the Kaikōura Marine Strategy 2012 which in turn articulates the aspirations of Te Korowai which are in summary: By perpetuating the mauri and wairua of Te Tai o Marokura The community act as kaitiaki of Tangaroa s taonga To achieve a flourishing, rich and healthy environment Where opportunities abound To sustain the needs of present and future generations Within the Hurunui District, Te Korowai extends between the north of the Clarence, to the south of the Conway. As such it is relevant for the Hurunui District Plan to link to this Strategy and Marine Management Bill. We also make the following general comments on drafting: i. Objective 12 the duty to the coastal environment is to protect it from inappropriate subdivision, use or development. ii. Policy 12.1 the policy does not have a purpose behind identifying the coastal environment.

79 iii. Policy 12.2 it isn t clear what 'a cautious approach' means and when and how it would apply. iv. Policy 12.3 the gesture is appreciated but it isn t clear what the policy means. v. Policy 12.4 we would like cultural values to be added to the effects to be avoided remedied or mitigated in the coastal environment. vi. Policy 12.5 we would like words added to this policy to avoid any adverse effects on the coastal environment or access to the coastal environment from new development, including demand for the disposal of wastewater or stormwater. vii. Policy 12.6 we think this policy could benefit from some clarification. Presumably it is about considering the use of mitigation offsets? We suggest greater direction about when and how offsets can be used, and what is meant by increased development potential and significant benefits. Chapter 13 Biodiversity Indigenous biodiversity is very important to Ngāi Tahu as many indigenous species are taonga and important for mahinga kai. We recognise landholder co-operation is vital to protecting biodiversity on private land and we support planning frameworks that incentivise the preservation of biodiversity and acknowledge and encourage the work of landholders in this area. Chapter 15 Natural Hazards Ngai Tahu supports the provisions in this chapter that seek to avoid, remedy or mitigate natural hazards but also recognise that mitigation works can have environmental effects that need to be managed. We offer the following general comments on drafting: i. Natural hazards we suggest cheeking the definition of natural hazard and rewording the chapter accordingly. (Natural hazard as defined in the RMA is not the natural event but the resulting damage to life, property or the environment.) ii. Policy 15.1 we suggest it would be impossible to have subdivision or land development that is not likely to suffer significant damage in any natural hazard event. We suggest rewording the policy to clarify that it is natural hazards of high probability that are managed rather than damage from any natural event no matter what its probability.

80 We hope this feedback gives the Council some indication of the matters Ngāi Tahu will pursue in the planning process. We would of course welcome the opportunity to discuss this further with you and to offer you further amended wording if your timetable allows. Otherwise we will make submissions in due course. Naku noa, Nā Tanya Stevens Programme Leader Mana Toitū Te Whenua Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu Cc: Raewyn Solomon, Te Rūnanga o Kaikōura Cc: Clare Williams, Te Ngāi Tūāhuriri Rūnanga Inc

81 Appendix 2

82 Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu PO Box Ōtautahi / Christchurch 8021 Attention: Tanya Stevens 12 March 2015 Dear Tanya Hurunui District Plan Review - Ngāi Tahu feedback Thank you for your feedback dated 10 February 2015 and for the opportunity to meet with yourself and Raewyn Solomon to further discuss the issues and reach resolution. Council welcomes the opportunity to discuss issues ahead of formal processes and is pleased that resolution was able to be reached on the majority of matters in your letter. Some of these resolutions relate to future actions, while others are able to be incorporated into the District Plan soon to be notified. The remainder of this letter sets out the position reached with respect to each of the matters. In addition, the Council is grateful for the time and effort Ngāi Tahu has put into the District Plan process to date and the alterations that you have recently made to three of the District Plan chapters to reflect the outcomes of our recent discussions. Chapters 1 and 2 We discussed a range of potential amendments to Chapters 1 and 2, and you have helpfully made a number of tracked change adjustments to these chapters. We also discussed and agreed the benefits of a memorandum that records the relationship between the Council and Ngāi Tahu and the expectations of both parties, which would sit outside the District Plan. Chapter 3 Our discussions particularly related to cultural landscapes and geo-preservation sites. We agreed that in advance of the identification by Ngāi Tahu of cultural landscapes it is difficult to alter the District Plan in an integrated manner. We agreed that the District Council would look to advance a variation or plan change when the information on cultural landscapes was available and could be discussed. With respect to geo-preservation sites, there was a general recognition that many were covered within the protections of the Coastal Environment and Outstanding Landscape areas. Council agreed to identify the Geopreservation Society identified areas that are outside of the Coastal and Outstanding Landscape areas. This has been completed and provided to you and Raewyn. Chapter 4 We had a lengthy discussion about a new Ngāi Tahu settlement at Balmoral. Again, in advance of any detail relating to what this settlement may entail or its more precise size and location, there is little that could be