Report on a Limited Notified Resource Consent Application

Transcription

1 Resource Management Act 1991 Report on a Limited Notified Resource Consent Application (Section 42A) Application Reference: Land Use: RMA Subdivision: RMA Applicant: Site address: CS Luney Limited 221 and 223 Buchanans Road Legal Description: Pt Lot 2 DP 2934 and Lot 13 DP Proposal: Subdivision and Landuse consent for the creation of 39 residential lots with dwellings and associated earthworks Operative City Plan Zoning: Activity status: Rural 5 (Airport Influences) Non-complying Proposed Plan Zoning: Residential New Neighbourhood Submissions: Four in opposition One in conditional support Date of Hearing: 27 May 2015 Recommendation: Grant subject to conditions 1 of 43

2 Preamble 1. My name is Mal Nash. I am a Planner with the Christchurch City Council and have been employed by the Council since I hold a Bachelor of Resource Studies from Lincoln University. 2. This report has been prepared with advice from the technical experts detailed below. Copies of their reports have been attached as appendices as required 1. Expert Position Appendix Janet Reeves Urban Designer Context Urban Design A Isobel Stout Senior Environmental Health Officer CCC Mike Calvert Transport Network Planner CCC E Doru Hozias Subdivision Engineer CCC F Sheryl Keenan Planning Engineer CCC G Victor Mthamo Senior Traffic Engineer CCC Russel Wedge Senior Network Planner Parks CCC 3. It should be emphasised that any conclusions reached or recommendations made in this report are not binding on the Commissioner and it should not be assumed that the Commissioner will reach the same conclusion or decision having considered all the evidence to be brought before him by the applicant and submitters. The Application 4. CS Luney have applied for subdivision and land use consent to establish 39 residential lots on the subject site with a dwelling on each of those lots. The proposal is described in Section 4 of the application prepared by Davie-Lovell Smith and as shown in Figure 1 below. Key features of the proposal are: A central collector road connecting to the existing residential area to the north of the site (via Jarnac Boulevard). A single access point onto Buchanans Road designed to accommodate a future upgrade to a signalised intersection. Areas of Reserve to Vest for recreation (Lots 41 and 42) and stormwater treatment/detention purposes (Lot 46). Construction of a footpath and cycleway along the full length of the site frontage. A set of proposed "built form standards that would apply to the future dwellings. Water and sewer connections to the existing reticulated network. On-site treatment and detention of stormwater. Earthworks for the creation of the drainage basins, roading etc. 1 Where expert comments simply comprise conditions they have not been attached (refer to the conditions section). 2 of 43

3 5. I am aware that the applicant is working on an amended scheme plan providing additional lots. The assessments in this report are based on the scheme plan dated February 2015 (Figure 1 below). Figure 1 Scheme Plan Existing environment 6. The site and surrounds are described in Section 3 of the application and in the Urban Design Advice report of Ms Reeves to Council (Appendix A). The site is as shown in yellow in Figure 2 overleaf. It has a combined area of 4.84 hectares. The site is currently vacant and is generally flat. High voltage transmission lines run along the eastern extent of the site. 3 of 43

4 Figure 2 Locality Plan Google Maps Google 7. Land-use activity within the immediate area is varied. In brief it comprises established neighbourhood to the east (suburb of Yaldhurst) and more recently established residential subdivisions to the north (Delamain), with rural activity to the south and west of the application site. Within the immediate area are: Gilberthorpes Primary School immediately east of the site. NZ Honey Farm located immediately west of the site at 235 Buchanans Road A Tegal operated poultry farm approximately 70m west of the site at 241 Buchanans Road Fulton Hogan landholding approximately immediately south of the site to the south-west with resource consents issued for quarrying on this land 2. 2 RMA and RMA of 43

5 The Planning Framework Background 8. Section 2 of the application provides some background to the application. Notably the applicant submitted a Private Plan Change application (PC80) to Council requesting that the land be rezoned from its current rural zoning to a mix a Living 1, 3 and Open Space 2 zones. PC80 was never notified and was overtaken by the Land-use Recovery Plan (LURP) which directed the Council to provide for a number of specified Greenfield Priority Areas as part of its District Plan review. This included the subject site part of a wider area known as South Masham. The South Masham area is identified in the Proposed Christchurch Replacement District Plan (Proposed Plan) as a residential area zoned Residential New Neighbourhood (RNN). The Proposed Plan also includes an Outline Development Plan 3 (ODP) based on the ODP prepared for PC80 (Attached as Appendix B). Proposed Christchurch Replacement District Plan 9. The City Plan is currently under review. Phase 1 of the Proposed Christchurch Replacement District Plan (Proposed Plan) was notified on 27 August 2014 and Phase 2 was notified on 2 May The site is proposed to be rezoned Residential New Neighbourhood (RNN) and is subject to an ODP South Masham. 10. Pursuant to section 86B of the Resource Management Act the rules within the Proposed Plan do not have legal effect until decisions on the plan have been notified. While the rules do not yet have effect, pursuant to section 104(1)(b)(vi) regard must be had to the relevant objectives, policies and other provisions. The Independent Hearings Panel has released a limited number of decisions on Phase 1 including Chapter 3 Strategic Directions which is discussed later in this report. My understanding is that these decisions are now beyond challenge, but will not be operative until notified. Operative City Plan (City Plan) 11. The site is zoned Rural 5 (Airport Influences) under the City Plan (though not located within the Airport Noise Contours). The zone surrounds most of the Christchurch International Airport and its primary purpose is the continuation of primary production while managing land use activities to avoid compromising airport operations and development. 12. As an urban/non-rural activity the proposed activity fails to comply with the following City Plan standards: Part 4 Rural Zones: 3 Appendix Buchanans Road Outline Development Plan: Residential Density, Movement Network and Green and Blue Network. 5 of 43

6 Critical Standard 2.5.2(c) Minimum net site area for a residential unit Critical Standard 2.5.5(b) Site coverage - Other activities Development Standard Road scene (setback) Development Standard 2.3.2(a) Separation from neighbours Development Standard 2.3.2(b) Separation from neighbours - in respect of setbacks of residential units to any intensive livestock management Part 9 General City Rules: Critical Standard and Development Standard Filling and excavation Part 14 Subdivision Critical Standard Allotment sizes and dimensions: 13. Overall the proposal must be considered as a non-complying activity. Submissions 14. At the request of the applicant the proposal was publically notified on 27 February A total of five submissions were received from the following (Attached as Appendix C): Christchurch International Airport (CIAL) - in conditional support. Orion New Zealand Limited (Orion) - in opposition. Tegal Foods Limited (241 Buchanans Road) - in opposition. Gillman Wheelans - in opposition. Richard John and Marilyn Anne Cutts (231 Buchanans Road) - in opposition. Four of these submitters wish to be heard. Each of the submissions are addressed in turn in the assessment of effects section. Statutory Considerations Resource Management Act When considering an application for resource consent for a non-complying activity and any submissions received, the consent authority must have regard to the matters listed in Sections 104, 104B, and 104D of the Resource Management Act Subject to Part II of the Act, which contains the Act s purpose and principles, including matters of national importance, the consent authority shall have regard to: a) Any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity. 6 of 43

7 b) Any relevant provisions of a plan or proposed plan, and national environment standard and regional policy statement. c) Any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application. 16. The proposal also needs to be considered against the following documents: The Recovery Strategy for Greater Christchurch (the Recovery Strategy). The Land Use Recovery Plan for Greater Christchurch (LURP). The Canterbury Regional Policy Statement (RPS). 17. It should be noted that other than giving pre-eminence to Part II, Section 104 gives no priority to other matters. They are all matters to have regard to and the consent authority must exercise its discretion as to the weight that it gives certain matters, depending on the circumstances of the case. 7 of 43

8 Actual and Potential Effects on the Environment (S.104 (1)(a)) 18. As a non-complying activity the Council s assessment is unrestricted and all actual and potential effects of this proposal must be considered. The relevant issues fall broadly into the following categories: Urban Design Rural Character and Amenity Reverse Sensitivity Effects Traffic Effects Earthworks & Geotechnical Infrastructure/Servicing Reserves Urban Design 19. The application does not include a specific urban design assessments. For Council Ms Janet Reeves has provided an Urban Design Assessment (attached as Appendix A). The land-use application includes a suite of built form standards that would apply to all future dwellings. Both the subdivision scheme and built form standards are based on the RNN (Residential New Neighbourhood) provisions of the Proposed Plan 4 and the ODP in the Proposed Plan. As these provisions are not yet operative they are potentially subject to change through the hearings, decisions and any subsequent appeal processes. Notwithstanding the uncertainty in this regard, given what we know in terms of the strategic need for development of greenfield priority areas both Ms Reeves and myself support the use of the proposed RNN standards as a sensible approach at this point in time. 20. In the interests of limiting the number of different provisions within the Plan it is recommended that once the RNN standards are made operative they should supercede the proposed built form standards. Ms Reeves comments Although it is not possible to say what the precise nature of the built form standards will be, it is my view, from following the Residential Hearing transcripts that they will be no more restrictive than the standards proposed by the applicant and may in fact be more permissive. Therefore I would not anticipate that switching to the RNN standards when they become operative, would be problematic to the applicant or future section and home owners. I accept Ms Reeves advice in this regard and recommend that a condition to this effect be applied to the land-use consent to achieve consistency with this important objective. 21. Ms Reeves has critically reviewed the scheme and proposed built form standards as compared to the current version of the RNN standards. She identifies minor inconsistencies in respect of corner lot sizes and building typologies, both of which could easily be amended to achieve compliance. Ms Reeves suggest ways that this could be addressed. Ms Reeves advises that the more restrictive recession planes proposed for the smaller lots is unnecessary under the current scheme and that Diagram C 4 Chapter 8 Subdivision and Chapter 14 Residential 8 of 43

9 should apply to all lots. I accept Ms Reeves advice in this regard and recommend that if consent is granted a condition of consent addresses this matter. The applicants proposed Built Form Standards are attached as Appendix D). 22. The key departure from the current RNN standards (subdivision) is the failure to achieve the required density of 15 households per hectare. Currently the proposed density of the subdivision is hh s/ha requiring an additional 5 lots would be needed to comply with this standard. These densities have been established through the LURP and RPS Chapter 6 and are not likely to change. Ms Reeves advises that in her view there are no physical barriers to achieving this density and she comments that the site is well placed in terms of access to community and commercial facilities to accommodate higher density living. I agree and it is my view that any approved scheme should be required to demonstrate compliance with the required densities. I understand that the revised scheme seeks to address this and I therefore anticipate this matter being resolved prior to the hearing. 23. The scheme plan is in accordance with the ODP which establishes the basic layout for subdivision. Ms Reeves is of the view that there are a number of areas where the proposal could and should be improved from an urban design perspective commenting The proposed subdivision is the first stage of what will eventually become a new neighbourhood and forms the main entrance to it. The proposal does not include any special design features to provide a sense of place or foster a community. Little space is allowed for an entrance feature, the spine road does not appear to be enhanced in any way, such as the boulevard style of Jarnac Boulevard. Properties turn their backs on roads and open spaces and there is widespread use of rights of way, which depending upon the nature of the boundary fences, could mean that there is a poor connection between private properties and public space, allowing little opportunity for casual surveillance (an important CPTED principle). 24. Ms Reeves recommends a specific changes to the boundary treatments interfacing Buchanans Road, the Recreation Reserves and Stormwater Reserve, along with measures to improve the quality of the entrance to the subdivision (refer to sections 11.4 and 11.5 of her advice). I support accept Ms Reeves recommendation in respect of the Buchanans Road frontage and consider this to be appropriate in terms of achieving consistency with the Plan's expectation for new residential neighbourhoods. I disagree however in respect of the fencing of the lots on the northern side of the recreation reserve and adjacent to the stormwater reserve. Ms Reeves recommends a height limit of 1.2m which is conflicts with the advice of Mr Wedge (Network Planner Parks) which extends this to 1.8m with 80% transparency. I prefer and accept the advice of Mr Wedge in this regard whose recommendations are based on the requirements for Reserves fencing under the Fencing Act where cost sharing applies. Lastly Ms Reeves supports a wider (25m) spine road as per the Gillman Wheelans submission. This is discussed under the later transport section. Rural Character and Amenity 9 of 43

10 25. The proposal breaches a number of standards that seek to protect rural character and amenity including site density and site coverage, and internal and road boundary setbacks. The applicant s assessment is set out in Section 6.3 of the application. 26. The subdivision scheme and proposed built form standards seek to establish residential development with a distinctly urban form and at densities of around 13 hh s/ha, compared with the rural standard of 1 dwelling per 4 hectares. Clearly this type of development is at odds with the environmental outcomes generally anticipated for a rural area. 27. In this instance the application site is located on the edge of Christchurch City existing residential area in an area of transition between the rural and urban environments. The existing pylons and overhead transmission lines detract significantly from the visual amenity of the site/area. Ms Reeves comments In summary the rural area has little visual amenity value, although it does provide a green and open contrast to the built up area. This, edge of the city, location is best described as peri-urban rather than rural in character. I generally agree with this assessment and consider the rural character of this area is expressed predominantly in terms of open green space rather than any particular landscape and amenity qualities. I also note that the presence of Fulton Hogan's quarrying south of the application site has an adverse impact on the overall rural character of the existing environment. 28. Ms Reeves goes on to say The change in use of the subject site to residential will completely change the character of the application site but given its relatively small size, the degraded character of the rural area and the fact that it will in effect be a continuation of the residential area across the road from Delamain any adverse effect on the rural character, the visual amenity of the area, and the outlook from neighbouring properties is likely to be minimal, providing the interfaces are sensitively handled. 29. I agree that as a continuation of the existing residential neighbourhood adverse effects in respect of rural character and amenity are expected to have a less widespread impact as compared to an isolated pocket of residential subdivision within an entirely rural setting. If the interfaces with the existing residential areas (north and east boundaries) are well managed then adverse effects in respect of rural character and amenity are expected to be largely limited to the directly adjoining properties. Notwithstanding the site's identification as a greenfield priority area, the fact of the matter is that the proposal seeks to expedite and pre-empt the District Plan review process. With regard for the sites current rural zoning it is my view that adverse effects in respect of rural character are more than minor in scale (and consistent with a public notification process). Given the limited rural amenity values associated with the existing environment, adverse effects in respect of rural amenity are expected to be no more than minor and limited to the immediately adjoining properties. Reverse Sensitivity Effects Tegel Foods Limited operate a poultry breeder farm at 241 Buchanans Road located approximately 70m west of the application site. Tegel advises that the operation is a breeder operation which I understand consists of barn-raised hens laying eggs then hatched and raised elsewhere for eating. The hens are 10 of 43

11 cycled off the site on an annual basis at which time the facility is cleaned etc. Tegel submits in opposition to the proposal on the basis of reverse sensitivity effects impacting on their continued operations at the site. Tegel ask that the Developer/Council place a no complaints covenant on future residential lots. I have viewed a draft covenant that has been prepared for the applicant s consideration. Based on this document I understand that Tegels concerns also extend to potential bio-security risks to its poultry associated with residential activity. 30. Reverse sensitivity effects arise where sensitive land-uses such as residential activity are co-located with lawfully established, but potentially nuisance-causing activity, which may lead to complaints and inturn place pressure on these lawfully established activities to curtail their operations. The City Plan Development Standard 2.3.2(b) Setback requires that the minimum setback for a residential unit from a building, compound or part of a site used for intensive livestock management, shall be 200 metres. The closest residential lot within the application site is approximately 70m from Tegels site. Additionally Community Standard Intensive livestock management requires that any building, compound or part of a site used for intensive livestock management shall not be located within 600 metres of a living zone boundary. The proposal does not seek to rezone the land to a living zone (the Proposed Plan does that), however the establishment of the proposed subdivision would if granted shift the residential areas closer to this established activity. 31. Council Environmental Health Officer Ms Isobel Stout, has provided comment in respect of noise. Based on the (limited) information available to her she anticipates that noise may be expected from heavy transport movements onsite and possibly mechanical plant such as air conditioning or extract fans if there are any. Ms Stout comments The chicken farm buildings are some 100m from the application site and the distance between boundaries some 70m. Over this distance I would expect noise effects from even heavy traffic movement on the farm would be less than minor, notwithstanding passing vehicle noise that currently exists from Buchanans Road itself. Further to this she states, The intensive housing and raising of chickens is a process that should be highly controlled in order to prevent hygiene issues and infectious disease in the flocks. I would expect such an operation to be closely monitored and when well-run not to be a source of any nuisance especially noise that would extend beyond the boundary. 32. I accept this advice. Ms Stout advises that Council has not received complaints of odour or noise to date in respect of Tegels operation. I am mindful that this activity is presently located 40m from the boundary with the existing residential areas to the north. On this basis my view is that the potential for complaints and associated reverse sensitivity effects in respect of noise associated with Tegel operations is limited. 33. Ms Stout is not qualified to comment in respect of odour issues and the applicant has not provided any formal assessment in this regard. Council do not have any in-house experts qualified to comment on odour. It was suggested to the applicant that we could with their agreement engage an external consultant to provide comment. The applicant has not responded to this suggestion. In the absence of expert advice in this regard I am unable to comment further on any potential reverse sensitivity effects associated with odour. 11 of 43

12 34. I have no issue with the use of a no complaints covenant to address Tegels submission however Council does not intend to be party to any such covenant as the enforcement is appropriately between the parties rather than burdening Council ratepayers. Traffic Effects 35. Transport Network Planner Mike Calvert has reviewed the application and Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA), prepared by Wayne Gallot of Urbis Group. His comments are attached as Appendix E. 36. The scheme plan is based on a single access onto Buchanans Road intersection with Jarnac Boulevard to the north. The intersection layout provides for future signalisation of the intersection when required. Council staff have explored possible alternative intersection layouts with the developer to understand whether there was a better road layout that would avoid the necessity for a controlled cross-intersection at Buchanans Road/Jarnac Boulevard. Modelling produced by Urbis indicated however that signals would be required for any further stages of development. Planning for the area also highlighted the need for pedestrian crossing facilities on Buchanans Road to enable children to safely cross from the residential developments to Gilberthorpe School. As such Mr Calvert supports the intersection layout proposed by Urbis which shall be constructed at the developers expense prior to the new subdivision road opening. Signals are not required as part of this stage of subdivision. 37. Mr Calvert notes that the proposed movement network for the development aligns with the requirements of the Plan and proposed ODP and that all roads and rights of way comply with Plan requirements. The ODP shows a number of shared paths through the proposed reserve connecting with existing roads and a pedestrian and cycle route along Buchanans Road linking the proposed development with the path to Gilberthorpe School. Mr Calvert recommends that all shared pedestrian/cycle paths will need to be constructed (by the applicant) to a minimum width of 2.5m to meet the requirements of the Council s Infrastructure Design Standards (IDS). Mr Calvert also states that the subdivision will create demand for pedestrians and cyclists to cross Buchanans Road and he considers that it would be appropriate for the developer to provide for this demand. This could be achieved through a condition of consent requiring the applicant to the construct a pedestrian island on Buchanans Road where the reserves are adjacent to each other. 38. Two submissions specifically reference concerns regarding traffic aspects of the proposal. The first is from Gillman Wheelans, who developed the Delamain subdivision on the north-eastern side of Buchanans Road opposite the application site. The ODP for this land required a 25m wide spine road through these subdivisions to allow for a bus route and on street cycle path. Gillman Wheelans submit in opposition to the 20m wide spine road proposed asking that the application be amended to provide a 25m wide road citing the need for a consistent transportation route and future provision for bus/cycle facilities. They also state that the variable widths will be confusing for users of the road network and that the 25m width would mirror the layout of Jarnac Boulevard. 12 of 43

13 39. Mr Calvert responds that the 20m proposed complies with the requirements of the Plan, which requires a collector road to be 18 to 20m wide. This also aligns with most of the existing collector roads in the City which are 20m wide. A 20m road corridor allows for provision of cycle lanes, footpaths, parking and landscaping and future provision for a bus route to service the area if/when required. In response to the submission that the variable width will create a confusing and inconsistent transportation route Mr Calvert notes that the spine road will be separated from Jarnac Boulevard to the north by Buchanans Road stating This will provide a break between the two different forms of road (Jarnac 25m and Spine Road 20m) at an intersection that will eventually be controlled by traffic signals. Therefore, whilst there will be a change in road width at Buchanans Road I do not consider that it will create confusion for the few motorists using this route. 40. Gillman Wheelans also submitted in respect of the off-set nature of the spine road with Jarnac Boulevard. A revised intersection layout prepared by Urbis has corrected this so that the collector road now aligns with Jarnac Boulevard. Mr Calvert comments The revised layout provides for three traffic lanes at the intersection, Changes will also be required to reduce the width of the existing 4 metre wide median on Jarnac Boulevard to enable two exit lanes to be formed on the approach to Buchanans Road. This will provide a better level of service for drivers exiting onto Buchanans Road from Jarnac Boulevard, where the existing road is currently approximately 5.5 metres wide and only wide enough for one traffic lane. 41. The second submission is from Richard and Marilyn Cutts who own and occupy the residence at 231 Buchanans Road, immediately east of the application site. The submitter opposes the installation of traffic signals at the Jarnac Boulevard / Buchanans Road intersection due to the impact it will have on access to their property and the extra noise generated by traffic braking and idling at the traffic signals. They support the (earlier) alternative layout proposed that would result in off-set T-intersections along Buchanans Road located approximately 90 metres apart. 42. With regard for the earlier comments in respect of the alternative intersection layouts considered, Mr Calvert comments I understand the submitters concern regarding the proximity of their driveway to the proposed signals, which will have a separation of approximately 20 metres (to the kerb-line of the side road). Until signals are installed, there will be little difference in the operation of the driveway as Buchanans Road traffic will continue to have right of way. When signals are eventually installed then there may be some delays imposed during the morning peak due to queuing traffic, but access may improve during other times of the day. Gaps are created in the traffic stream by signals that would not otherwise be there and this will provide opportunities for access to and from the property. This is not an unusual situation in any area where signals are installed and while it does change the nature of access to properties it does not always result in worse access. Whether the intersections were off-set or not, signals will be required at some stage in the future and it is likely that the Jarnac Boulevard intersection would be the intersection signalised creating the same situation for the submitters. He considers that the intersection (and future signals) can be designed and managed to minimise the effects on access to the adjacent property at 231 Buchanans Road. 13 of 43

14 43. I accept the advice of Mr Calvert in this regard and recommended conditions of consent. On this basis I am of the view that adverse effects in respect of the safe and efficient functioning of the road network will be less than minor. Earthworks 44. The proposal will exceed the maximum volumes of excavation and fill of 1000m³ per hectare and the development standard for the maximum height/depth of fill of 0.5m. The applicant has not provided estimates of the overall volumes or cut/fill depth. They do however state that there will be a balance of cut to fill onsite. Mr Doru Hozias, Council s Subdivision Engineering Officer, has reviewed the application and proposes a suite of conditions for these works and to address associated adverse effects which should be attached to the land-use consent. I accept his advice and subject to the recommended conditions I am satisfied that adverse effects in this regard will be less than minor. Geotechnical 45. A geotechnical report has been prepared by Bell Geoconsulting Limited. Mr Hozias has reviewed this and provided comment (Attached as Appendix F). He notes the following: According to CERA s land classification, the property is located in a GREEN zone. Consequently there is no (foundation design) technical category that could be assigned to it. The site walk-over found no signs of ground damage or damages with existing dwelling or auxiliary buildings at the site. The liquefaction risk is very minor or insignificant. 46. Mr Hozias agrees with the report conclusions and recommends consent conditions in respect of the design and construction of all infrastructure assets that are to be vested in the Council and specific foundation design (with a supporting consent notice registered on the titles). Sewer 47. The proposed sewer outfall would be the existing sewer main at the intersection of Buchanans Road and Gilberthorpes Road located some 400 metres from the site. The application has been reviewed by Consultant Engineer, Mr Victor Mthamo, who has not raised any capacity concerns. He recommends a number of conditions of consent. He advises that the applicant will be required to design and construct the sewer main to service the entire catchment (a minimum of 225 lots) located within the Greater Christchurch Urban Boundary adjacent to the site that is able to be rezoned under a cost-sharing arrangement with the Council. Water 14 of 43

15 48. A potable water supply is available on Buchanans Road directly opposite the site boundary. As above Mr Mthamo advises that the internal water supply spine shall be sized to cater for any sub-catchments that may be outside the consent holder s development under a cost sharing agreement. Stormwater 49. Lot 46 located largely underneath the electricity transmission lines/towers has been identified for stormwater detention and treatment purposes. Council Planning Engineer Ms Sheryl Keenan has reviewed the application material and comments on the concept plan submitted to Council on 14 May (Her comments are attached as Appendix G). By way of background Ms Keenan notes that prior discussions with the applicant at the time of the PC80 application, established agreed basic concepts for the stormwater system to serve the proposed development and catchment areas for this stormwater system. The applicant was asked to design their stormwater system to cater for all of the area within the ODP that cannot reasonably be expected to be catered for in facilities to the south of this site owing to the fall of the land Ms Keenan comments This isn't the stormwater system initially proposed by the applicant in their consent application, and at the time of writing it was unclear if the applicant agreed to all aspects of this proposal. Concept designs supplied on 14 May show a single basin solution which would be expected to have a shorter useful lifespan that the two basin solution requested by Council. This concept plan has not been supported by calculations at this stage, however based on a phone conversation prior to submission of this plan it appears that this has also not yet been sized to meet the detention requirements proposed by Council. 51. Further to Ms Keenan s comments I also note that the submitted concept plan fails to address the requirements of the ODP Green and Blue Network which show provisions for a network of pedestrian and cycle tracks. 52. The submissions from both Orion and CIAL relate to stormwater (Attached as Appendices ** &**). The submission from Orion seeks to protect its infrastructure citing concerns in respect of earthworks, vegetation and stormwater detention occurring within close proximity to the distribution line corridor, and failure to provide setbacks and vehicle access to the support structures for maintenance purposes, all of which could adversely impact on the safe and efficient operation of the line network. Orion asks that the consent be amended or conditioned to include provision for access to the support structures, limits on landscape planting underneath the electricity line corridor and compliance with the setbacks provided within the New Zealand Code of Practice for Electrical Safe Distances in respect of any earthworks, structures and buildings. Orion submits that if applicant is not willing to provide the measures identified above that the resource consent applications be declined. 5 Includes all or part of: Lot 27 DP , Lot 1 DP 11388, Lot 3 DP 2934 and Lot 3 DP of 43

16 53. The submitted concept plan and correspondence between the applicant and Orion shows that the applicant intends that all stormwater basins be located west of the overhead lines and clear of the support structures thereby avoiding the need to provide a dedicated access track. This is to be supported by conditions; one of which is that all basins shall be located to the west of the transmission of the lines. 54. In response Ms Keenan comments, I oppose the conditioning of the consent for the stormwater basins to be located to the west of the transmission lines. I think that this represents a very poor solution from a landscaping and recreational perspective (noting that Council's stormwater guidelines require a six values approach is taken to design 6 ). Other developments along this transmission corridor have provided far more natural landforms for these basins, covering much of the area under the transmission lines. While I understand Orion's preference for these to be located outside of this area, I do not believe that this was a requirement stated in their submission and I consider that the preferences of Orion need to be balanced against other matters that could lead to potentially poor outcomes for the development. I provided feedback to the applicant on this on 15 May 2015 and have not had a response at the time of writing. 55. Further to this Council's Senior Network Planner Parks Mr Russel Wedge, notes that the proposed proximity of the basins to the residential lots will require a 5m wide planted buffer area between the edge of the basins. This raises concerns in respect of additional maintenance costs associated with this planting, noise associated with the regular maintenance of the basins and safety and security issues for future residents and park users through reduced passive surveillance into the reserve and potential for undesirable behaviour occurring between the planted areas and the fences of the residents properties. 56. Mr Wedge comments, The planted buffer is only required where a basin is adjacent to a residential property. If the basins were under the pylons the planted buffer areas would not be required and the land would be mown. With reduced operational budgets the parks operations team is requesting more areas to be maintained as grass than shrub gardens, which have lower maintenance and asset replacement costs. It would be desirable from an open space planning perspective to have the stormwater basins located under the pylons away from the back of the residential properties. Our preference would be to have a mown grass area between the back of the residential Lots and the pylons which would encourage passive surveillance into the reserve and the area planted with a few trees with clear visibility under the canopies. The mature height and placement of the trees would be governed by the clearance required for the pylons and distance from the back of the residential properties ( dated attached as Appendix H). 57. I accept the advice of Ms Keenan and Mr Wedge in this regard. It would appear that there is ample space within Lot 46 to accommodate their concerns, satisfy the submission from Orion and the requirements of the ODP. As such I recommend that the applicant should provide a revised concept to address these concerns for Council and Orions consideration. 6 Recreation, landscape, ecological, heritage, cultural and drainage. 16 of 43

17 58. The CIAL submission in conditional support refers to the increase in surface water through the creation of swales and basins and the associated potential increase in bird numbers and risk of bird strike. CIAL requests that the application only be granted with such conditions that ensure that "The bird hazard risk to aircraft is minimised as much as is reasonably practicable through the design of the stormwater system to ensure water does not pond for longer than three days after the cessation of any storm event" and "There is sufficient ongoing monitoring and review conditions to support the above". 59. Ms Keenan responds that the Councils WWDG, the Stormwater Management Plan for South-West Christchurch, with supporting conditions of consent, will control the maximum depths of basins, minimum infiltration rates etc to ensure that any design would both ensure that acceptable infiltration rates are achieved during construction and initial operation of the basins and that safety factors are built into the infiltration design to ensure that long term infiltration rates also ensure compliance with the above request. Proposed conditions include infiltration testing (with required results standards) at design stage, during construction and at least 12 months following the issuance of the Section 224 certificate before the Council will accept maintenance responsibility. If the required infiltration rates are not achieved, the consent holder will be required to undertake all necessary works to achieve the required infiltration rate. Council has also agreed to trial the use of a grass on the sides of the basins that has been developed for use as a bird deterrent (containing endophytes). 60. I understand that the applicant is discussing their concept plan and the proposed conditions directly with CIAL. 61. As set out above the current proposed stormwater system results in significant adverse effects. In my view the applicant should provide an amended proposal at the hearing to address these matters. Greenspace/Reserves 62. Senior Network Planner Greenspace Mr Russel Wedge, has reviewed the application. He has no issues with the vesting of Lot 46 as Local Purpose (Utility) Reserve. The scheme plan identifies Lots 41 and 42 as Recreation Reserve. Mr Wedge advises that Council has insufficient funds through the Reserve Development Contributions from this subdivision application to purchase both Lots 41 & 42. Lot 42 is considered a critical link for the residents in the south of the development for access to the west. Residents could gain access to the east of the development through Lot 43. I note that the urban design advice concurs with Mr Wedge's advice. The applicant has been advised of this. A number of conditions have been recommended by Mr Wedge which I have adopted. Conclusion with respect to effects on the environment 63. Based on the current scheme the expert advice received is that there remain are a number of outstanding issues in respect of urban design, reverse sensitivity (Tegel submission), pedestrian and cycle links and provision for stormwater. I accept their advice and recommendations in this regard and I am satisfied 17 of 43

18 that the changes requested are both reasonable and achievable. Subject to the resolution of these remaining matters it is my view that the outcomes in respect of urban design, reverse sensitivity, pedestrian and cycle links and provision for stormwater will be satisfactory. Importantly I am also advised that servicing of the site is possible at this time. 64. In terms of adverse effects my assessment (contrary to the urban design advice received) is that based on the current rural zoning of the site that adverse effects on rural character will be more than minor in scale and in terms of rural amenity no more than minor. In an overall sense, based on the suggested amendments and mitigation provided I am satisfied that environmental effects will be no more than minor. Relevant Objectives, Policies, and other Provisions of a Plan or a Proposed Plan (S.104 (1)(b)) Weighting of the Plans 65. All non-rule provisions in the Proposed Plan (ie, objectives, policies, explanations etc) are a relevant matters to which regard must be given under s104(1)(b)(vi) of the RMA. As noted earlier the Strategic Directions Chapter is now beyond challenge and may be afforded full weight in decision-making. Otherwise the legal advice to Council is that the usual principles as to weight apply at this stage of the plan change process. Some of the proposed objectives and policies which are derived from the Urban Development Strategy process and the Minister s changes to the RPS, will however carry more weight at this stage than other provisions that do not have the same level of direction from superior instruments and prior planning processes. Where the City Plan fails at this time to give effect to the Regional Policy Statement I am advised that more weight should be given to RPS than the City Plan. 66. The provisions of the LURP will also be relevant to the question of weight at section 104 stage. The LURP directs the Council to provide for particular high level changes in the District Plan Review. Those Actions to enable recovery in the LURP, together with the LURP s change to the RPS, must result in significant weight being given to the high level framework in the District Plan Review that implements that direction. Operative City Plan 67. A number of Operative City Plan objectives and policies are relevant to this proposal. Many have overlapping or complementary goals. The relevant objectives and polices relate broadly to urban growth, rural productive potential, rural character and amenity, infrastructure and transport. 68. Under Urban Growth Objectives 6.1 Urban consolidation and 6.3A Peripheral urban growth there are a large number of policies that are potentially relevant 7. The general thrust of the provisions supports urban consolidation as the most sustainable urban growth option. The benefits of urban consolidation 7 Policies 6.1.1, 6.3A.1, 6.3A.2, 6.3A of 43

19 including a compact urban form, the efficient use of existing infrastructure, minimising costs of providing public infrastructure and increased population densities to support public transport. Provision is made for higher building densities in larger areas of peripheral urban housing growth. The application site is located on the periphery of the existing urban areas. The Projected infrastructure Boundary and Airport Noise Contours provide a well-defined barrier to further outward expansion. The expert advice received is that servicing is available supported by a number of conditions in respect of provision for stormwater, intersection upgrades and pedestrian/cycle facilities/links. 69. Policy 6.3A.12 Rural-urban interface deserves mention. This policy refers to improving the quality of the rural-urban interface, and establishing a transition adjacent to the urban boundary, particularly where no clear physical boundary to urban growth exists. The application site in this instance sits within a larger greenfield priority area. The scheme is based on future development of this wider area for residential purposes in accordance with the ODP (as enabled by the Proposed Plan zoning). As such the proposal includes no specific treatment of existing rural interface to the west, nor any transition in terms of lot sizes. Under these circumstances this seems a reasonable and the urban design advice is that special treatments are not required in this instance. 70. Lastly, Policy 6.3A.8 Incompatible rural activities is also relevant. This requires regard for the presence of any incompatible activities in the rural area in assessing urban growth proposals. The explanation for the policy states, Rural activities which have legitimately established should not be expected to relocate to accommodate urban growth, unless the developer has taken clear steps to mitigate any adverse effects, or compensate the rural activity if it wishes to relocate by voluntary agreement. The onus is clearly on the urban developer, and urban growth proposals will not be viewed favourably by the Council if incompatible activities are present, unless specific measures to address these effects have been identified. At the time of writing this report there is still some doubt in my mind regarding the effects that are generated by the chicken farm which may need to be protected from reverse sensitivity and in fact whether there are any. However, this policy states that the onus is on the developer to address any incompatibility. On this basis it was suggested to the applicant that they liaise with the submitter to resolve this issue between the parties. The effects and any mitigation will need to be further addressed at the hearing. In the absence of any further evidence, I consider that the potential adverse effects relate to noise, biosecurity and odour and that these may be of such significance that the proposal is inconsistent with this Policy 71. Notwithstanding the comments in respect of the latter two polices, in an overall sense I am satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the Plan's urban growth objectives and policies. 72. Rural Objective 13.1 The rural land and soil resource seeks protect its continued use for a variety of rural activities with scope for the appropriate establishment of urban activities. The reason for the objective states While the emphasis will be on retention of rural character, there are circumstances where it is economically sound and environmentally acceptable for urban activities to establish on rural land, having regard to the relative significance of servicing costs, availability of services, soil qualities and local environmental constraints. The appropriateness of urban development in the rural area is 19 of 43

20 determined in part by the above factors, but in addition to other policies in this Plan which emphasise urban consolidation. 73. Clearly there is a broad enabling thrust to this objective which provides for urbanisation of rural land under certain circumstances. Currently rural-zoned the application site has been identified as appropriate for residential development under the higher order documents 8 with the Proposed Plan seeking to give effect to this. The land to be developed is not classed as having versatile soils (with superior primary production potential), it is not identified as having high rural amenity value, nor is its development constrained by natural hazards or infrastructure/servicing. For these reasons I am satisfied that the proposal supports this objective. 74. Objective 13.4 Rural amenity values and supporting Policies , and in respect of building development and earthworks collectively seek to ensure that rural amenity values and visual character, are maintained and whenever possible enhanced, and adverse effects of activities are recognised and controlled. In addition Policy recognises the duty to avoid, mitigate or remedy adverse effects. As discussed under the Assessment of Environmental Effects section, notwithstanding that the existing rural character of the local environment is compromised, development of such an urban character/density is clearly at odds with a rural environment. Adverse effects in respect of rural amenity can be mitigated, however adverse effects in respect of rural character are expected to be more than minor. For these reasons the proposal does not in my view support the maintenance or enhancement of rural amenity values as anticipated under the current rural zoning and as such is considered to be contrary to this objective. 75. Policy International Airport operations sits under Objective 13.3 Rural Infrastructure and seeks to ensure that development within the Rural 5 zone takes into account the impacts of the operations at of the International Airport, particularly noise effects. While residential use of this land would be considered to be a noise-sensitive activity the site is located outside of the Airports 50dba airport noise contour and as such no specific noise-related mitigation is required. CIAL have submitted in conditional support of the proposal subject to management of bird strike risk associated with the proposed stormwater system. I am advised that this is achievable. As such the proposal is not expected to adversely affect the operation of this strategic infrastructure. The proposal is therefore considered to be consistent with this policy. 76. Transport Objective 7.2 Road Network and the supporting Policy 2.5 Land use control seek to control the establishment of land use activities to achieve compatibility with the roads they front by avoiding, remedying or mitigating the effects which each has on the other. Objectives 7.4, 7.5 and supporting Policies and Links in subdivisions require safe pedestrian and cycle links in new developments. Both aim to reduce motor vehicle trips and encourage the use of alternate modes of transport. The traffic advice is that the subdivision is consistent with the relevant operative plan provisions. The intersection layout proposed Buchanans Road is appropriate. The road layout can 8 RPS, LURP 20 of 43

21 support a public transport route when required. Subject to provision for pedestrian and cycle facilities and links as per the recommended conditions the proposal is able to support these objectives and policies. 21 of 43

22 Proposed Christchurch Replacement District Plan 77. As with the Operative Plan there are a large number of provisions under the Proposed Plan that are relevant found within Chapters 3 Strategic Directions, 8 Subdivision, Development and Earthworks and 14 Residential. A number of objectives and polices are very similar to the Operative Plan provisions including those in respect of protection of strategic infrastructure (airport), transport, incompatible activities (reverse sensitivity) and treatment of interfaces 9. My overall conclusions in respect of these provisions are as for the Operative plan and need not be repeated. 78. As discussed earlier Chapter 3 Strategic Directions 10 is now beyond challenge. The chapter is described as providing the overarching for the Plan and the objectives within it have primacy over all others. Objective 3.3.2(a)(ii) Clarity of language and efficiency requires that the District Plan minimises the number, extent and prescriptiveness of development controls and design standards in the rules. A condition is recommended that all relevant provisions in the Proposed Plan once operative will supercede the proposed built form standards. This achieves this objective in terms of reducing the number of site specific provisions and providing a standardised approach to the RNN zone. 79. Strategic Directions Objectives in respect of enabling recovery and meeting housing needs and the aforementioned in respect of minimising the number, extent and prescriptiveness of development controls have primacy overall other objective and policies in the Proposed Plan. 80. There are a number of provisions within the Strategic Directions, Residential and Subdivisions Chapters in respect of housing supply that direct the location, type and density and mix densities within greenfield and new neighbourhood areas 11. The urban design advice is that there is no physical barrier to achieving the required densities and a mix of housing typologies this however the current scheme fall short at around 13hh s/ha and therefore would be considered to be inconsistent a number of these key policies. 81. Equally there are a number of complimentary provisions in respect of the quality, character and amenity of these neighbourhoods 12. In brief these promote that greenfield development responds to context, has an a distinct identity, contributes to a high quality street scene and has a high level of internal and external amenity, has connectivity to wider area/facilities and promotes walking, cycling and use of public transport, and that lot design and layout provides for housing choice. The advice of Ms Reeves is that currently the proposal does not meet this objective. As discussed in the Assessment of Effects section she recommends a number of specific and achievable measures be undertaken to achieve consistency with these provisions. I generally support those changes and subject to the satisfactory resolution of these matters I am confident that overall consistency with these provisions can be achieved , , , and Released 26 February , 3.3.4, 3.3.7, , and , , , , , and of 43

23 82. Subdivision Objective Infrastructure and transport and the supporting Policies , and seek provision for a legible, well-connected, highly walkable, and comprehensive movement network for all transport modes and that land is set aside for services which can also be used for other activities, such as pedestrian or cycle ways. Subdivisions are required to give effects any ODP and ensure integration with the Green, Blue and Movement Networks within the zone and to adjoining areas. The outstanding matter in this regard is failure to show the pedestrian and cycle links required by the ODP within the Local Purpose (Utility) Reserve (links within the Recreation Reserves can be achieved). The traffic advice is that the developer should be responsible for this. Uncertainty in the regard means that the proposal has inconsistencies with this policy. Based on the advice received I am satisfied that the proposal achieves consistency with Policy Policy Open space. 83. Also under this objective there are a number of supporting polices 13 in respect of provisions of services which seek to ensure that land is serviced in a comprehensive, integrated and efficient manner. Policy Provision of works and services, financial and development contributions requires that developers meet the costs of any upgrading of network infrastructure and provision of reserves which are attributable to the impacts of the subdivision. The expert advice is that servicing is possible at this time (subject to necessary conditions) and as such the proposal supports this group of objectives and polices. 84. Subdivision and Residential Policies , , and in respect of stormwater sets out the expectations for stormwater systems (design, capacity etc) including where feasible use of these areas for multiple uses with a high quality interface with residential or commercial activities. Council staff do not support the submitted stormwater concept plan for a number of reasons though I am advised that an acceptable solution is achievable given the available land. The ODP indicates that the stormwater area should also provide for pedestrian and cycle links. Subject to satisfying the Orion submission this is also achievable but the concept plan and subdivision scheme do not provide any certainty in this regard. At present the proposal is inconsistent with this policy. Conclusion on Operative and Proposed City Plan Objectives and Policies 85. With regard for the earlier comments in respect of weight I have approached this assessment from the perspective that 1) the Strategic Directions provisions are beyond challenge and 2) the District Plan is required to give effect to the RPS and where the provisions within the Operative Plan fail to do so more weight should be given to the relevant provisions of the Proposed Plan. 86. Importantly the Operative Plan does contemplate urban development within rural locations in certain circumstances. Key to my assessment are consistency with urban consolidation and growth provisions, the availability of services. Subject to amendments in respect of urban design, and provisions for pedestrian/cycle links and stormwater I am confident that adverse effects may be mitigated to the extent 13 Policies , , , , of 43

24 required to achieve consistency with the relevant rural amenity, transport and servicing provisions. Change to the existing rural character of the site and adjacent rural areas is inevitable however t it is my view that in an overall sense the development not inconsistent with the Operative Plan. 87. In terms of the Operative Plan additional amendments are recommended to achieve the required residential densities, and to ensure that the RNN standards apply to this land once operative. I am not aware of any submissions in respect of the proposed rezoning of this land and given the site is identified as a greenfield area within the higher order documents there is in my view a high degree of certainty that the proposed RNN zoning will remain (with possible adjustments to the standards). Provided these recommended changes are accepted I am satisfied that the proposal will achieve a high degree of consistency with the Proposed Plan provisions. Non-complying Activity Threshold Test (S.104D) 88. Adverse effects associated with the proposed activity are considered to be no more than minor and the proposal is consistent with the objectives and policies of both the Operative and Proposed City Plan. As such the proposal satisfies the threshold test contained in Section 104D of the Act and consent can be granted. Other Relevant Statutory Documents (S.104 (1)(b)) RPS 89. Section 104 requires that consideration of resource consent applications must have regard to the RPS. The District Plan is required to give effect to the RPS. Consequently the relevant RPS provisions largely mirror those discussed in respect of the Proposed Plan. RPS Chapter 6 Recovery and Rebuilding of Greater Christchurch (introduced via the LURP) provides the resource management framework to enable earthquake recovery and rebuilding. Chapter 6 includes Map A which defines the Projected Infrastructure Boundary (urban limit) and identifies the greenfield priority areas. The following provisions are relevant: 90. Objective Recovery framework and the supporting Policies 6.3.1, and direct where urban activity may occur, provided that development maintains the character and amenity of the rural areas, protects of strategic infrastructure and optimises use of existing infrastructure including supporting active and public transport. Objective Urban form and settlement pattern along with Policy seeks a consolidated urban form, with prescribed minimum densities for greenfield area and a greater range of housing types. Supporting Policies and require that development give effect to the principles of good urban design. Policy Development in accordance with outline development plans requires residential development to be in accordance with an ODP explicitly stating that subdivision must not proceed ahead of the incorporation of an ODP in a district plan. 24 of 43

25 91. Increased densities are critical to consistency with these provisions. As discussed adverse effects in respect of rural character are considered to be somewhat inevitable. Amendments are recommended to improve the amenity of the site within its setting. The servicing needs of the development can be met. In this instance the ODP has been incorporated into the Proposed Plan but is not yet operative. In the absence of specific submissions this is not expected to change. The proposed ODP provides the requisite framework and subject to more certainty in respect of pedestrian/cycle links and the stormwater concept the scheme plans is largely in accordance with the ODP. Provided these remaining issues are satisfactorily addressed I consider the proposal to be consistent with the intent of the RPS, and broadly supports recovery and increased housing supply. Relevant Other Matters (S.104 (1)(c)) Recovery Strategy for Greater Christchurch 92. The Recovery Strategy must be "read together with, and forms part of" other relevant legislation within the greater Christchurch area. The City and District Plans must not be interpreted or applied in a way that is inconsistent with the Recovery Strategy. 93. The Recovery Strategy is generally a high-level document. Under Section 4 Vision and Goals for the Recovery clause 1.1 in respect of coordination between public and private sector to facilitate a timely and efficient recovery is relevant, as are clauses 5.5 and 5.6 which promote integrated infrastructure, housing and transport networks by providing sufficient land for recovery needs within settlement patterns consistent with an compact urban form and with a range of affordable housing options. 94. Section 5 of the Recovery Strategy identifies a number of priorities for recovery. Relevant to this proposal is the supply of land for recovery needs through efficient consenting processes and timely provision, restoration or optimisation of infrastructure. 95. The proposal supports these objectives. On this basis granting consent to this application is not considered to be inconsistent with the vision, goals or priorities outlined in the Recovery Strategy. LURP 96. The LURP or Recovery Plan is a high-level document produced post-earthquake to support Greater Christchurch s recovery and rebuild over the next years. It identifies the broad recovery needs, the plan to lead recovery and provides for the delivery of infrastructure and services In brief, the Recovery Plan identifies the critical actions required in the short and medium term to coordinate and advance decision-making about land use, as well as who is responsible for these 14 Sections 4.2, 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.4, 4.4.1, 4.6, of 43

26 actions and when they must be completed. These include the introduction of Chapter 6 to the RPS, and directives to Council to provide for 1) development of the greenfield priority areas within District Plan Review and 2) a prioritised infrastructure programme to support this development The CER Act requires that any decisions on resource consents must not be inconsistent with the LURP. These broad issues have been thoroughly canvassed in the preceding sections and I find no basis for a conclusion of inconsistency with the LURP. Precedent effect/plan integrity 99. Given the non-complying status of this application it is appropriate to have regard to the issue of precedent, as well as the effect of granting consent upon the integrity of the City Plan and in this case RPS and public confidence in their consistent administration. Case Law has established however, through the High Court in Rodney District Council v Gould, that concerns relating to plan integrity and precedent effect are not mandatory considerations. The Court held that they are matters that decision makers may have regard to, depending on the facts of a particular case including: 1. Whether a proposal is contrary to the objectives and policies of the plan; and if so 2. Whether in the circumstances of a particular case a proposal can be seen as having some unusual quality In this case the proposal is not contrary to the objectives and policies of the City Plan (Operative and Proposed). That said, the applicant seeks to develop their land in advance of the District Plan Review process. For the reasons discussed, I am confident that the adoption of the RNN standards is the best approach however this is not without risk as these provisions are not yet operative and as such are potentially subject to change/challenge. I accept that this does pose somewhat of a precedent for the consistent administration of the Plan in the interim period until the RNN standards are operative. The risk is however in my view limited insofar as any similar proposals would: Need to be located within an identified greenfield priority area; Have an existing ODP (albeit proposed); and Need to be able to be serviced without placing any burden on the Councils programme and ratepayers. Were these circumstances to be replicated additionally there is a limited window for this to occur ahead of the truncated DPR process. For these reasons I consider that any precedent risk is minimal. 15 Actions 19, 33 and of 43

27 Part II of the Act 101. In considering an application for resource consent, pre-eminence must be given to Part II, the purpose and principles of the Resource Management Act. The purpose of the Act is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources Section 5 imposes a duty on consent authorities to promote sustainable management while avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects of activities on the environment. I do not consider there are any matters of national importance (Section 6) or Treaty of Waitangi issues (Section 8) which need to be taken into account. Section 7 lists various matters to which regard shall be had in achieving the purpose of the Act. The matters of particular relevance to this application are: (b) (c) (f) (g) The efficient use and development of natural and physical resources; The maintenance and enhancement of amenity values; Maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment; and Any finite characteristics of natural and physical resources: 103. The sites location within an identified greenfield area located on the periphery of the existing residential areas, provides opportunities for resource and infrastructure efficiencies. I am confident the outstanding issues and submissions can be satisfactorily addressed, and on this basis adverse effects can overall be appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated. I am satisfied that the proposal represents the best use of the land resource, particularly in a period of recovery and rebuild On this basis I consider that the proposal supports the purpose of the Act as it represents a sustainable and efficient use and development of the site and is in keeping with Part II of the Resource Management Act Conclusion 105. After considering the actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the application, it is my conclusion that adverse effects are no more than minor in scale In my opinion this proposal is consistent with the relevant objectives and policies of the Operative and Proposed City Plan I therefore consider that the proposal satisfies the threshold test of Section 104D. In this respect I consider Council has discretion to exercise as to whether or not to grant consent I consider that the proposal is consistent with the RPS, Recovery Strategy and LURP I consider that the proposal supports Part II of the Resource Management Act of 43

28 110. Having considered all of the relevant matters under Sections 104, 104B and 104D, it is my opinion that consent should be granted subject to conditions. Recommendation Note: a) The below conditions are subject to the provision of a scheme plan demonstrating to Councils satisfaction that the subdivision achieves a minimum net density of 15 households per hectare. b) Subject to further discussions in respect of the stormwater provisions propsed, additional conditions may be required including to address the matters raised in the Orion submission. A) LAND USE CONSENT (RMA ) That the application be granted pursuant to Sections 104, 104B, 104D and 106 of the Resource Management Act 1991, subject to the following conditions imposed pursuant to Sections 108 of the Resource Management Act 1991: 1. The development shall proceed in accordance with the information and plans submitted with the application. The Approved Consent Documentation has been entered into Council records as RMA (# pages) and includes the stamped approved plans RMA pages * to *.. 2. Any buildings on the residential lots shall comply with the Built Form Standards Document entered into Council records as RMA pages ** except that Recession Plane Diagram A shall apply to all lots. 3. At such time that all the relevant sections of The Proposed Replacement District Plan are made FENCING/LANDSCAPING 4. Boundary fencing along the Buchanans Road frontage of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 39 and the eastern boundary of Lot 4 shall comprise a hedge (or railings and a hedge) located along the full length of and within the lot boundaries. 5. All landscaping required for this consent shall be maintained. Any dead, diseased, or damaged landscaping is to be replaced immediately with plants of a similar species. EARTHWORKS General 6. The development associated with excavation/filling for new lot levels, for any stormwater detention / first flush basins and for road sub-grade levels shall proceed in general accordance with the information submitted and plans lodged, and entered into Council records, under subdivision and land use consent identified under RMA Details with regard the potential depth of the cut and fill shall be provided as part of the engineering plans package for civil / earth related works. 7. The consent holder shall be responsible for all contracted operations relating to the exercise of this consent and shall ensure that all personnel working on the site are made aware of the conditions of this consent, have access to the contents of this consent document and all other associated plans 28 of 43

29 that are or could be required for the development (Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, Site Management Plan, Construction and Environmental Management Plan, Traffic Management Plan) and methodology, and shall ensure compliance with consent conditions. 8. A copy of the list with consent conditions (earthwork related) shall be available on site to contractor(s) undertaking the earthworks at all time the physical works (authorised by consent) are being undertaken. 9. With at least one week before the starting any proposed and earth related works, the applicant shall provide an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP). The ESCP is to be designed by a suitably qualified person (environmental technician or engineer, civil engineer) and shall be accompanied by a design certificate (in accordance with IDS Part 3 Appendix IV). The performance criteria for the ESCP, unless directed by Council through the subdivision engineering approval process, will be based on ECAN s Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines (2007). delines.htm. The approval of the ESC Plan is by the Subdivision Engineer (Resource Consent Unit). 10. Any change proposed to the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (as approved by consent RMA ) shall be confirmed in writing by the consent holder following consultation and based on written acceptance of the CCC subdivision engineer/subdivision planner, prior to the implementation of any proposed changes. 11. No work (other than that required for implementation of ESC measures) shall commence on site without an Engineering Completion Certificate (IDS Part 3, Appendix VII), signed by an appropriately qualified and experienced engineer. That is to certify that the accepted Erosion and Sediment Control measures have been installed (put in place / constructed) in accordance with ECAN Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines and the accepted ESC Plan. 12. All filling and excavation work shall be carried out only with approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) set in place. The approved ESCP shall be implemented on site during the construction phase and no earth related works shall commence until such time as the ESCP has been approved. 13. A Traffic Management Plan will need to be prepared, approved and implemented for this construction activity. Activities on any road should be planned so as to cause as little disruption, delay or inconvenience to road users as possible without compromising safety. For Council input/acceptance/approval regarding TMP please send your ESC Plan documentation to Christchurch Transport Operation Centre and request to tmc@ccc.govt.nz. For more information/guidance please refer to Should the Consent Holder cease, abandon work on site, stop the works for a period longer than 6 weeks, or be required to allow time gaps along the earthworks proposed timeline, it shall first take adequate preventive and remedial measures to control sediment discharge / run-off and dust 29 of 43

30 emission, and shall thereafter maintain these measures for so long as necessary to prevent sediment discharge or dust emission from the site. 15. All such measures shall be of a type and to a standard which are to the satisfaction of the Council s subdivision engineer. 16. No work shall be undertaken on Sundays, Public Holidays, or outside the hours of 7.00 am to 6.00 pm without the Council s prior consent. Dust Control 17. Adequate dust control measures must be in place at all times so as to minimise any nuisance to neighbouring properties and to avoid the dispersion of dust (wind related) from stockpiles and from vehicle manoeuvring/movements. Appropriate equipment, including water carts and/or sprinklers, is to be available and used on site at all times: To prevent dust emission and run-offs, any required (temporary) stockpiles shall be kept moist during the excavation / earthworks / storage period (avoid dust leaving the site area). The speed of vehicle on site shall be reduced to 10 km/h. Any earth related work or vehicle movements on site shall stop if wind speed is higher than 10 m/s (36 kms/hour). The main road used to access into or exit from the site is to remain tidy at all times. 18. The access area to and out of the site, shall be laid with a coarse gravel aggregate layer (crashed rock over a layer of geotextile filter cloth) or provided with adequate devices to minimise sediment egress onto public road and reduce road safety hazards. Site Characteristics (contamination / archaeological) 19. in the event that soils are found that have visible staining, odours and/or other conditions that indicate soil contamination, then work must cease until an Environmental Consultant has assessed the matter and advised of the appropriate remediation and/or disposal options for these soils. 20. The applicant shall notify the Team Leader, Environmental Effects, Inspections and Enforcement Unit, Christchurch City Council of this matter as soon as possible. Noise related 21. Noise from excavation and traffic (on site machineries / trucks) must be limited to comply with requirements of NZS 6803 Acoustic Construction Noise (See Table 3, page 11 from NZS 6803). 22. All loading and unloading of trucks with excavation or fill material is to be carried out within the subject site. Level of Fill, Sediment control, Run-Off control and other related 23. Any change in ground levels is not to cause a ponding or drainage nuisance to neighbouring properties. Special treatment shall be provided to any interface between proposed subdivision and neighbouring properties (boundary line) where a difference in levels is proposed greater than 200 mm. 24. All fill material shall be well compacted in layers not exceeding 200 mm in depth. 30 of 43

31 25. The fill material is to be placed, compacted and tested in accordance with the Code of Practice for Earthfill NZS 4431: The content of fill is to be in accordance with Rule of Section 9 of the City Plan. 26. All bared surfaces shall be adequately top-soiled and vegetated as soon as possible to limit sediment mobilisation. 27. Surplus or unsuitable material is to be disposed of away from the site to a Council approved destination. Completion of Work 28. At the completion of the earthworks operations: Any public road, footpath, landscaped areas or service structures that have been affected / damaged by contractor(s), consent holder, developer, persons involved with earthwork development or vehicles and machineries used in relation earthworks / construction works shall be reinstated to CSS on the expense of those identified as above and to satisfaction of subdivision engineer. An engineering fill report (including test results) on the filling operation shall be submitted to the Subdivision Engineer for acceptance (information will be placed into CCC information/hazard related system). The report shall present the As Built Plan (the plan shall show the lot boundaries, the shape and perimeter of each filled area, the new and old RL levels identified by different colour, and the contour lines joining the same level values). B) SUBDIVISION CONSENT RMA That the application be granted pursuant to Sections 104, 104B, 104D and 106 of the Resource Management Act 1991, subject to the following conditions imposed pursuant to Sections 108 and 220 of the Resource Management Act 1991: 1. Compliance with Application Information 1.1 The survey plan, when submitted to Council for certification, is to be substantially in accordance with the stamped approved scheme plan entered into Council records as RMA page Lot 40 (access) hereon beheld as to 9 undivided one ninth shares by the owners of Lots Allotment to Vest as Recreation Reserve 2.1 As agreed with the applicant Lots 41 and 42 are to be shown on the survey plan as Recreation Reserve to Vest, clear of any easments. 3. Allotment to Vest as Local Purpose (Utility) Reserve 3.1 As agreed with the applicant Lot 46 is to be shown on the survey plan as Local Purpose (Utility) Reserve to Vest and hold no credits towards the final Reserve Development Contributions assessment. The agreed developments on the Accepted landscape plans for Lot 46 are to hold no credits against the Reserve Development Contributions. Advice note: An application will need to be made to the Council s Reserves Officer Subcommittee for approval for the proposed easements across the Local Purpose (Utility) reserve, prior to the issue of 224C. 4. Allotment to Vest as Local Purpose (Road Reserve) Reserve 31 of 43

32 4.1 As agreed with the applicant Lot 43 is to be shown on the survey plan as Local Purpose (Road Reserve) Reserve to Vest. 5. New Road to Vest 5.1 As agreed with the applicant Lots 44, 45 and 47 are to be shown on the survey plan as Road to Vest. 5.1 The new road Lot 47 is to be formed and vested in the Council to the satisfaction of the Subdivision Engineer with underground wiring for electricity supply and telecommunications. 6. General Engineering 6.1 Asset Design and Construction All infrastructure assets to be vested in the Council are to be designed and constructed in accordance with the Christchurch City Council's Infrastructure Design Standard (the IDS) and the Construction Standard Specifications (the CSS). In addition to the above, to be considered suitable in terms of section 106(1)(a) and (b) of the Resource Management Act, the applicant is to design all infrastructure to resist the effects associated with seismic induced forces (slope movements, seismic shaking) 6.2 Quality Assurance The design and construction of all assets is to be subject to a project quality system in accordance with Part 3: Quality Assurance of the IDS. A. Prior to the commencement of physical works on site for the construction of the subdivision including infrastructure, the Consent Holder shall submit to the Planning Team - Subdivision Engineers a Design Report, Plans and Design Certificate complying with clause of the IDS. The Design Report and engineering plans are to provide sufficient detail to confirm compliance with the requirements of the IDS and this consent. B. Prior to the commencement of physical works on site, the Consent Holder shall submit to the Council's Planning Team - Subdivision Engineers a Contract Quality Plan for review by the Council subdivision engineer and the "Engineer's Review Certificate", complying with clause of the IDS. Physical works shall not commence until a Council Engineering Officer confirms that the above documentation has been received and accepted. C. Prior to the issue of certification pursuant to section 224(c) of the Resource Management Act, the Consent Holder shall submit to the Planning Team - Subdivision Engineers the "Engineer's Report" complying with clause of the IDS and an "Engineer's Completion Certificate" complying with clause of the IDS. The "Engineer's Report" shall provide sufficient detail to confirm compliance with the requirements of the IDS and this consent, including compliance with consent conditions requiring mitigation measures in respect to any potential hill side related hazards. Note 1: Part 3 of the IDS sets out the Council's requirements for Quality Assurance. It provides a quality framework within which all assets must be designed and constructed. It also sets out the process for reporting to Council how the works are to be controlled, tested and inspected in order to prove compliance with the relevant standards. It is a requirement of this part of the IDS that the Consent Holder provides certification for design and construction as a prerequisite for the release of the section 224(c) certificate. The extent of the documentation required should reflect the complexity and/or size of the project. In addition to the above, the applicant is to design all infrastructure to resist the effects associated with earthquake induced liquefied soils. All liquefaction hazard mitigation shall be designed for a 1 in 150 year return period serviceability limit seismic design event and a 1 in 500 year return period ultimate limit state seismic design event as defined in NZS of 43

33 6.3 The surveyor is to forward a copy of the title plan and survey plan to the Subdivision Planner (that issued the consent), Resource Consents & Building Policy Unit as soon as the plan has been lodged (or earlier if possible) for checking at Land Information New Zealand for entering into the Council GIS system. 6.4 Unless a waiver is granted all private sewer and stormwater laterals (serving rear lots) shall be installed under a single global Building Consent by a Licensed Certifying Drain Layer and the Code Compliance Certificate forwarded to Council s Subdivision Team as part of the Sec 224c application. If a waiver to the building consent is granted this should instead be provided as part of the s224(c) application. 6.5 A CCTV (Video) inspection using a pan and tilt camera for all gravity pipelines of 150mm diameter and above as per the Christchurch City Council Standard Specifications CSS: Part 3 Section This shall only apply to pipes being vested in Council ownership which cover more than one manhole length. This is to be done after all construction works have been completed. The DVDs/tapes shall be labelled with the RMA consent number and address of the development and accompanied by CCTV log sheets which show a schematic layout of the pipeline videoed. 6.6 All pipelines shall be free of debris and cleaned with an HP cleaner within 24 hours prior to inspection. Any gravel and stones shall be taken out of the pipeline; it is not acceptable to flush stones and gravel further down the line. 6.7 The CCTV/video footage of the pipeline being vested shall be forwarded to the Subdivision Engineer in DVD format with log sheets, engineering plan, summary sheet and a copy of the consent conditions at least 10 working days prior to the CCC Final Drainage Inspection. Asset and Network Planning Unit staff will review a maximum of 1,000 metres of footage within 10 working days and respond accordingly. 6.8 The applicant s consultant shall provide the Council with As-Built plans and data for all infrastructure and private work, complying with Part 12 As-Builts of the CCC Infrastructure Design Standards. 7. Water Supply 7.1 The point of supply for the proposed allotments will be 300 mm PVC water mains located in Buchanans Road directly opposite the site boundary. 7.2 The internal water supply spine shall be sized to cater for any sub-catchments that may be outside the consent holder s development. As cost share agreement shall be entered into with Council for any pipe requirements over and above the consent holder s requirements this shall be for the cost of pipe materials only. The cost share agreement will be on a similar basis to the sewer consent condition The applicant shall design and construct the proposed water pipe to cater for flows from the areas external to the subdivision as outlined in Condition 7.2 above under one of the following cost share arrangements: A. Council will pay for the extra water supply costs which will be the difference in costs between a larger water pipe to also serve catchments outside this development and the water costs that the developer would have incurred for a water supply to fully serve the development. B. The Council and consent holder s share of the costs will be calculated based on the proportional number of lots i.e. the number of lots in all stages of this subdivision, compared to the estimated total number of lots that will be served by the water supply. Note: Private Developer Agreement with the Council will be entered into between the developer and Council prior to the issuance of engineering approvals. This will detail cost share arrangements, the proportional contributions and the timeframe within which the applicant will be reimbursed by Council. 7.4 The water supply shall be designed in accordance with the Infrastructure Design Standard and in general accordance with the NZ Fire Service Fire Fighting Water Supplies Code of Practice NZS 4509:2008 to the satisfaction of the Asset & Network Planning Team, City Environment Group. 33 of 43

34 7.5 This development will require full high pressure water reticulation to the Council s specifications and acceptance at the consent holder's expense. Engineering drawings shall be sent to the Subdivision Engineers (Planning Team 1) for acceptance by City Water & Waste staff. 7.6 The water reticulation shall be designed by a suitably qualified person using the City Rezoning Pressures provided on the Opus Consultants Plan RZ-SPD referenced Final WS Rezone Source and Sprinkler Design Pressures dated 24 July 2014 attached. 7.7 All lots shall be served with a water supply to their boundary. Submains shall be installed to 1m past each lot boundary. 7.8 Rear lots shall be served with laterals installed by a Licensed Certified Plumber into their net site areas under a Building Consent for each stage. 7.9 Where the water submain is laid through private property or the R.O.W, relevant private easements for the right to convey water shall be acquired by the applicant. 7.8 A copy of the Code Compliance Certificate shall be forwarded through to the Council s Engineering Team as part of the Section 224c application This work shall be carried out by a Council approved water supply installer at the expense of the applicant. Refer to: for a list of contractors. 8. Sewage 8.1 The approved sanitary sewer outfall for the proposed allotments will be the existing 375 mm diameter sewer main at the intersection of Buchanans Road and Gilberthorpes Road some 400 metres from the site. 8.2 Sanitary sewer laterals are to be laid to at least 600mm inside the net site area of all residential lots at the subdivision stage. The gravity laterals shall be installed at a sufficient depth to ensure that adequate fall is available to serve the furthermost part of the lots. 8.3 The sewer main from the site to the outfall shall be sized to service the entire catchment (a minimum of 225 lots) within the Greater Christchurch urban boundary adjacent to the site that is able to be rezoned. 8.4 The internal sewer spine shall be sized to cater for flows from upgradient sub-catchments that maybe outside the consent holder s development. Advice Note: The applicant shall design and construct the proposed sewer to cater for flows from the areas external to the subdivision as outlined in Condition 8.4 above under one of the following cost share arrangements: C. Council will pay for the extra sewer costs which will be the difference in costs between a larger sewer pipe to also serve catchments outside this development and the sewer costs that the developer would have incurred for a sewer to fully serve the development. D. The Council and consent holder s share of the costs will be calculated based on the proportional number of lots i.e. the number of lots in all stages of this subdivision, compared to the estimated total number of lots that will be served by the sewer. Note: Private Developer Agreement with the Council will be entered into between the developer and Council prior to the issuance of engineering approvals. This will detail cost share arrangements, the proportional contributions and the timeframe within which the applicant will be reimbursed by Council. 8.5 Sanitary sewer laterals shall be laid to at least 600mm inside the net site area of all residential lots at the subdivision stage. The laterals shall be installed at a sufficient depth to ensure that adequate fall is available to serve the furthermost part of the lots. 34 of 43

35 8.6 Where the number of lots exceeds the Building Act drainage discharge requirements for a 100mm common sewer pipe, a 150mm private common sewer pipe shall be installed. 8.7 All private sewer laterals (serving rear lots, if any) shall be installed under a single global Building Consent by a Licensed Certifying Drain Layer and the Code Compliance Certificate forwarded to Council s Subdivision Team as part of the Sec 224c application. 8.8 Network sewers to be vested in Council shall be a minimum of 150mm diameter and where they are outside the road reserve they shall be covered by easements in gross in favour of Council. 8.9 The sewer system shall be designed based on Council s Infrastructure Design Standard and Council's Construction Standard Specifications. Engineering drawings supported by hydraulic calculations shall be sent to the Engineering Services Team for acceptance The CCTV/video footage of the pipeline being vested shall be forwarded to the Subdivision Engineer in DVD format with log sheets, engineering plan and a copy of the consent conditions at least 10 working days prior to the CCC Final Drainage Inspection. Asset and Network Planning Unit staff will review a maximum of 1,000 metres of footage within 10 working days and respond accordingly. 9. Greenspace 9.1. Development Contributions Policy Lot 42 has been identified as a recreation reserve and the agreed value of this Lot can be credited towards the Reserve Development Contributions. The agreed developments on the Accepted landscape plans for Lot 42 may be credited against the Reserve Development Contributions providing funding available. Advice note: The CCC has insufficient funds through the Reserve Development Contributions from this subdivision application to purchase both Lots 41 & 42. Lot 42 is considered a critical link for the residents in the south of the development for access to the west. Residents could gain access to the east of the development through Lot Design and Development of reserves and streetscapes A. Landscape plans for the reserves, and streetscapes are to be submitted as part of the Landscape Design Report to the Asset and Network Unit (Parks) for acceptance. All landscaping is to be carried out in accordance with the Accepted plan. B. Where the Consent Holder has applied to vest assets as detailed on Accepted Landscape Plans, but the Asset and Network Unit (Parks) have not agreed to the value of the assets being credited against the Reserve Development Contributions or to reimburse the value of the assets to the Consent Holder, then the Consent Holder may vest the assets at their own expense. C. The Landscape Design Report and plans are to provide sufficient detail to confirm compliance with the requirements of the IDS, the CSS: and the WWDG: All landscaping required by this condition is to be carried out in accordance with the accepted report and plan(s) at the Consent Holder s expense, unless otherwise agreed. The Consent Holder shall maintain the works for 12 months for the Establishment Period (Maintenance and Defects Period) from the time of issue of the Section 224 Certificate. 9.3 Establishment Period (Defects Liability Period) The Establishment Period (Defects Maintenance) for reserve lots will include an inspection by Parks Unit staff after the first 6 months. Any diseased, dead or replacement plantings are to be replaced at the Consent Holder s expense. The Establishment Period and the term on the bond shall be extended by a further 12 months for the replacement planting(s). Refer: CSS, Section Establishment. The Consent Holder is to keep an accurate and up-to-date monthly report on plant and tree conditions during the Establishment Period of the works undertaken. The report shall be submitted, if requested, by the Engineer within five days of the end of each month during the Establishment Period (Refer sample report: Landscape Construction Monthly Establishment Report, CSS, Part 7 Appendix 1). 35 of 43

36 9.4. Street Trees A. The Consent Holder shall submit a plan(s) for the proposed street trees to the Council s Asset & Network Unit (Parks) Team for acceptance. The plan(s) are to provide sufficient details to confirm compliance with the requirements of the IDS (current version) and the CSS Part 7: Landscapes (current version). All street tree works are to be carried out in accordance with the accepted report and plan(s) at the Consent Holder s expense. The Consent Holder shall maintain the street trees for 12 months Establishment Period (Defects Maintenance) from the time section 224 certificate is issued and an inspection by the Parks Unit staff after the first 6 month is to be undertaken. The Establishment Period and the term on the bond shall be extended by a further 12 months for the replacement planting(s), if required. B. The Consent Holder is to keep an accurate and up-to-date monthly report on tree conditions and establishment works undertaken. The report shall be submitted, if requested, by the Engineer within five days of the end of each month during the Establishment Period (Refer sample report: Landscape Construction Monthly Establishment Report, CSS, Part 7 Appendix 1). Advice Note: Refer to ISA Part 10: Locations of trees in streets, and CSS Part 7: 4.0 Supply of Tree and Plant Materials. C. The Consent Holder shall enter into a separate bond with Council Asset & Network Unit (Parks) Team to the value of 50% of the cost to replace and replant all street trees. The bond shall be held for the Establishment Period of a minimum of 12 months and shall be extended by a further 12 months for the replacement planting(s), if required. 9.5 Reserve Boundary Fences The Consent Holder shall comply with the IDS Boundary Fencing. Reserve boundary fencing over 1.2 m high is to be at least 80% open in order to enable clear visibility for neighbouring properties. The height, style and location of the fence shall be submitted to the Council s Asset and Network Unit (Parks) Team for acceptance, prior to work commencing. Advice Note: The Council will contribute towards the cost of the boundary fence up to a maximum of $23.83 (including GST) per linear metre or half the cost, whichever is lower for a standard 1.8 metre high paling fence. The Council prefers see through or open style fencing and will pay up to $92.00 (including GST) per linear metre or half the cost whichever is lower. If the Consent Holder would like to install a boundary fence of greater value than the Council s maximum contribution they may do so at their own expense, providing it complies with the IDS. The reserve boundary fences are part of the subdivision development and are to be credited against the Reserve Development Contributions, although boundary fences for reserves with a stormwater function are not eligible for a Council contribution. 9.6 Final Completion / Handover The Consent Holder shall submit, if requested, the required completion documentation in accordance with IDS Part 2:2.12 Completion of Land Development Works and the Quality Assurance System to provide evidence that the work is completed in accordance with the agreed standards and conditions of this consent. This is to be submitted, if requested, on completion of the 12 month Establishment Period, prior to formal handover to Council and release of the Establishment Bond. 9.7 As Builts The Consent Holder shall submit As-Built plans showing street trees and confirm that they have been planted in accordance with the accepted plans and comply with the IDS, in particular Part 12 (As Builts). 10. Stormwater 10.1 The surface water management system constructed under this application shall rely on stormwater treatment and disposal to ground soakage. The system shall generally meet the requirements of the CCC Waterways, Wetlands and Drainage Guide (WWDG 2003 including Chapters 6, 21 and Appendix 10 updated 2011/12), the Infrastructure Design Standard (IDS 2013), the Construction Standard Specifications (CSS 2013) and the South West Area Christchurch Stormwater Management Plan. 36 of 43

37 10.2 Authorisation for construction phase stormwater discharge shall be through the Canterbury Regional Council under separate resource consent application Authorisation for operational stage stormwater discharge shall be obtained either from Christchurch City Council under the South West Area Stormwater Consent (CRC120223) or by separate resource consent obtained from Environment Canterbury (only if agreed with Council) Stormwater from all lots and roading areas shall be collected via channels, sumps, pipes or swales and discharged into a first flush soil adsorption basin and detention/rapid soakage facility located within Lot 46 to be vested in Christchurch City Council as Local Purpose (Utility) Reserve Provision shall be made for collection, conveyance through the site and treatment/detention/disposal of runoff from the portions of the following land parcels (allowing for full development levels) Lot 27 DP , Lot 1 DP 11388, Lot 3 DP 2934, Lot 3 DP 9514 as shown on the submitted Development Plan (South of Masham) entered into Council records as RMA page**. Following design of the surface water management system, agreement shall be reached with Council s Assets and Networks Unit on any aspects of the surface water management system relating to these additional catchment areas that are not proposed to be constructed as part of these works Provision shall be made for the collection, conveyance of runoff from the local Buchanans road reserve catchment if required resulting from works in this area The surface water management and mitigation system shall be designed to ensure complete capture, retention and disposal of all stormwater runoff from the site for all rainfall events up to and including the two percent annual exceedance probability, 36-hour storm. Further, the conveyance shall be designed to ensure that even for events where the critical peak stormwater runoff flow rate occurs that all resulting runoff shall actually reach the stormwater mitigation facility. A combination of primary and secondary conveyance systems may be used to ensure this level of service is achieved The first flush volume to be captured and treated shall be the runoff from the first 25mm of rainfall within the catchment. The consent holder s consultant engineer shall confirm with CCC staff the appropriate choice of runoff coefficients and the parameters of any stormwater modelling inputs for the catchments peak stormwater flow calculations and critical stormwater volume calculations prior to engineering design acceptance The soil adsorption/detention basin shall be designed to hold, at minimum, an above-ground volume equal to all runoff from a ten percent exceedance probability storm event of 18-hour duration Prior to the commencement of engineering works, the consent holder must demonstrate, by means of appropriate testing (by a suitably qualified professional), that the design soakage rates for any final infiltration to ground system can be achieved on site. Note: Actual soakage rates, determined by test, shall be reduced by a factor of three (or more) in the final design of the soakage system At the time of excavation of the actual infiltration site during the construction phase of the development, the consent holder shall confirm by suitable test(s) that the initial assumptions of infiltration rates, derived from the preliminary testing, are appropriate. Subject to this testing, the Council may review these conditions pursuant to Section 128 of the Act to require the consent holder to adjust the engineering design The proposed soakage areas are not to be used for major construction sedimentation control sites, unless the designer can demonstrate that their use will not compromise future capacity as a long term infiltration basin in any way. The sediment control management plan for the development works shall to be designed such that any sediment accumulation within the proposed soakage areas is avoided. Care is to be taken during construction to ensure that the natural permeability of the soils is not compromised by heavy machinery use or other construction procedures Before Council accepts maintenance responsibility of the soil adsorption basin, the consent holder shall test surface infiltration rates within 12 to 24 months following issuance of the Section 224 Certificate. 37 of 43

38 10.14 The median soakage test results for soil adsorption basins required under the above condition shall be within the range of 50mm-150mm per hour (for double-ring infiltrometer testing), with no individual test result less than 30mm per hour. Should that range not be achieved, the consent holder shall undertake all necessary works to achieve the required infiltration rate, at no cost to Council To ensure compliance with the above condition, the value of a possible soakage basin restoration activity shall be assessed by Council Officers and the consent holder shall bond that sum with the Council, prior to the issuance of the Section 224 Certificate A planted landscape buffer of average width 5 metres is to be established between the stormwater basin and residential allotments, as measured from the peak design water surface to the lot boundary. The Council may at its discretion allow some variance to this buffer width and planting requirements. Planting of the buffer zones shall be a cost of the consent holder Prior to engineering acceptance a landscape plan of the proposed stormwater facilities and landscape buffers are to be submitted to the Council s Assets and Networks Planning Unit for acceptance. Landscaping required by this condition is to be carried out in accordance with the approved plan at the consent holder s expense. The consent holder shall maintain planting for at least 12 months from the time of issue of the Section 224 Certificate The primary stormwater reticulation network shall be designed to convey (at minimum) the critical twenty percent annual exceedance probability storm event. No nuisance flooding of property shall occur during the critical ten percent annual exceedance probability storm event and no flooding of buildings shall occur during the critical two percent annual exceedance probability storm event The designer of the surface water management system shall provide a report which identifies all secondary flow paths proposed and any adverse effects from storms greater than the critical two percent annual exceedance probability storm event. All secondary or emergency stormwater flowpaths are to be identified and protected by an easement in favour of Christchurch City Council, if required Safe and adequate access to public surface water mitigation facilities for maintenance and sediment removal shall be provided and designed in accordance with clause 6.8 & 6.9 WWDG The consent holder shall provide easements in gross over all stormwater infrastructure located outside of legal road or utility reserve areas to be vested with Council Engineering plans, specifications and calculations for the design and construction of all surface water management and mitigation infrastructure are to be submitted to the Assets and Networks and Resource Consents Units for acceptance The designer shall demonstrate as part of their submission for engineering approval, that the bird hazard risk to aircraft is minimised as much as is reasonably practicable through the design ensuring the water does not pond for longer than three days after the cessation of any storm event. Potential use of Avonex Colosseum AR 95 grass on basin sides (not the base of the basin) and other landscaping areas shall be discussed and agreed with Council during detailed design The consent holder shall operate and maintain surface water mitigation facilities and infrastructure to vest into Council for at least 12 months following the issue of the section 224(c) certificate, after such time Council may accept responsibility for operation and maintenance The applicant shall provide as-built plans of the surface water management systems and facilities and confirm that they have been constructed in accordance with the approved plans and comply with the IDS, particular Part 3: Quality Assurance and Part 12: As-Builts A maintenance and operations manual for all surface water management and mitigation facilities shall be provided and shall form part of the engineering acceptance. This manual is to include a description of the activity, the design assumptions, maintenance schedule and monitoring requirements. 38 of 43

39 10.27 An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) is to be submitted for review as part of the design report. The ESCP is to include (but is not limited to): Site description, i.e. topography, vegetation, soils etc Details of proposed activities. A report including the method and time of monitoring to be undertaken. A locality map. Drawings showing the site, type and location of sediment control measures, onsite catchment boundaries and offsite sources of runoff. Drawings and specifications showing the positions of all proposed mitigation areas with supporting calculations if appropriate. The performance criteria for the ESCP, unless directed by Council through the engineering acceptance process, will be based on ECan s Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines (2007 or current). The ESCP is to be implemented on site during the subdivision construction phase and no works are to commence until such time as the ESCP has been accepted. The ESCP is to be designed by a suitably qualified person and a design certificate supplied with the plan. (Use the certificate from Appendix IV of the CCC Infrastructure Design Standard Part 3) Note: Pursuant to Section 128 of the Resource Management Act 1991 Council reserves the right, during the construction phase, to review this condition to impose further controls in respect to Sedimentation Control and Management 11. Filling 11.1 All filling exceeding 300mm above excavation level shall be in accordance with the Code of Practice for earthfill for residential purposes NZS 4431: A duly completed certificate in the form of Appendix A of NZS 4431 shall be submitted to the Council for all lots within the subdivision that contain filled ground, prior to the issue of a Section 224 Conditions Certificate A code of compliance shall be provided for any building consent that is issued for any retaining wall constructed in association with this subdivision The consent holder is to submit a report and calculations detailing filling proposed against existing boundaries and the mitigation proposed to avoid adverse effects on adjoining properties. Note: The applicant is advised that an engineering approval does not constitute a resource consent for earthworks against adjoining properties. Refer to RMA Street Lighting 12.1 Street lighting is to be installed in the new road(s) to vest in compliance with Part 11 (Lighting) of the Infrastructure Design Standard. 13. Telecommunications and Energy Supply 13.1 All lots shall be provided with the ability to connect to a telecommunications and electrical supply network at the boundary of the net area of each lot. Ability to connect means that ducts or cables must be laid to the boundary of the net area As evidence of the ability to connect, the consent holder is to provide a copy of the reticulation agreement letter from the telecommunications network operator and a letter from the electrical energy network operator, or their approved agent. 14. Right of Way Easements (Private Ways) 14.1 The rights of way easements as set out on the application plan shall be duly granted or reserved. The registered users of the right of way shall maintain the access and the liability and apportionment of the costs of maintenance shall be written into the legal document granting or reserving the right of way easement. 15. Service Easements 39 of 43

40 15.1 The service easements as set out on the application plan or required to protect services crossing other lots shall be duly granted or reserved Easements over adjoining land or in favour of adjoining land are to be shown in a schedule on the Land Transfer Plan. A solicitor s undertaking will be required to ensure that the easements are created on deposit of the plan. 16. Easements over Reserves 16.1 Easements over land that is to vest in Council as reserve are to be shown on the survey plan in a Schedule of Easements. Evidence of approval by the Reserves Officer Sub-committee of Council to create the easements is required. 17. Easements in Gross 17.1 The legal instruments for easements in gross in favour of Council are to be prepared by Council s consultant solicitor at the consent holder s cost. The consent holder s solicitor is to contact Anderson Lloyd Lawyers (Mike Kerr) requesting the preparation of the easement instruments. 18. Road and/or Lane Names 18.1 The new roads are to be named. New right of ways with more than four lots may also be named A selection of names in order of preference is to be submitted for each new road/right of way. For historical purposes a brief explanation of the background for each submitted name is preferred. The names are to be in accordance with the Council's Policy on Naming of Roads and Rights of Way dated 2 November The allocated names when approved are to be shown on the survey plan submitted for certification. Post and nameplate fees are to be paid. 19. Public Utility Sites 19.1 Any public utility site and associated rights of way easements and/or service easements required by a network operator are approved provided that they are not within any reserves to vest in Council. 20. Geotechnical 19.2 Infrastructure and Services - Asset Design and Construction: All infrastructure assets that are to be vested in the Council shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the current (January 2013) version of the IDS (including the post-earthquake updates) and the Construction Standard Specifications (CSS) Foundation Design: A consent notice, in terms of Section 221 of the Resource Management Act, be placed on the new title requiring that: Any structure requiring a Building Consent, in terms of Building Act provisions, shall have specific foundation design by a chartered engineer or by an appropriately qualified geotechnical engineer. The consent notice shall be registered on the title requiring the above. 21. Transport 21.1 A consent notice, in terms of Section 221 of the Resource Management Act, be placed on the new titles of Lots 1, 2, 3. 4 and 39 requiring that: Lots 1, 2,3, 4 and 39 shall have no direct access to Buchanans Road. The consent notice shall be registered on the title requiring the above The following works be undertaken at the cost of the applicant: a. The intersection of the spine road with Buchanans Road (including any changes to Jarnac Boulevard) be designed and constructed in general accordance with the intersetction layout proposed by Urbis and entered into Coucnil records as RMA page*; 40 of 43

41 b. Except for Lots 41 and 42 all shared paths are to be constructed as shown on the submitted Development Plan (South of Masham) (ii) Movement Network entered into Council records as RMA page** and all paths are to be a minimum width of 2.5 metres; c. A shared path is to be constructed by the applicant to link the development movement network with the Buchanans Road entrance to Gilberthorpes School; and d. A pedestrian island and associated infrastructure is to be constructed on Buchanans Road to provide a safe crossing point between the reserves associated with the pylon corridor Prior to commencement of works a construction phase Transport Management Plan shall be submitted to the Subdivisions Engineer for approval. The Transport Management Plan should address ingress and egress details, haulage routes and recreational cyclists particularly on weekends. All works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Transport Management Plan. 22. Fencing 22.1 A consent notice, in terms of Section 221 of the Resource Management Act, be placed on the new titles of Lots 1, 2, 3. 4 and 39 requiring that: Boundary fencing along the Buchanans Road frontage of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 39 and the eastern boundary of Lot 4 shall comprise a hedge (or railings and a hedge) located along the full length of and within the lot boundaries. Boundary fencing shall be established at the applicants expense. All landscaping required for this consent shall be maintained. Any dead, diseased, or damaged landscaping is to be replaced immediately with plants of a similar species. The consent notice shall be registered on the title requiring the above. 23. Amenity 23.1 The applicant shall employ dust mitigation measures such as watering, removal of debris, stabilisation of stockpiles and exposed surfaces etc, to prevent dust, sand and materials causing a nuisance beyond the subject site throughout the construction period Surplus excavated material is to be disposed of away from the site to a Council approved destination. Topsoil may be retained for landscaping The hours of operation of work shall be restricted to 7.00am to 6.00pm, Monday to Friday and 8.00am to 6.00pm Saturday except that no works shall take place on public holidays. This restriction on the hours of operation excludes any work required for compliance with the erosion and sediment control measures All construction work on the site shall be designed and conducted to ensure that construction noise from the site does not exceed the noise limits in the following table. Sound levels shall be measured and assessed in accordance with the provisions of NZS 6803:1999 Acoustics Construction noise No work shall be undertaken on Sundays, Public Holidays, or outside the hours of 7.00 am to 6.00 pm without the Council s prior consent The consent holder shall be required to maintain a complaints register and this record shall be made available to the Council to view within five working days of any request. 24. Accidental Discovery 24.1 The consent holder shall follow the Historic Places Trust Accidental Discovery Protocol. 41 of 43