BEFORE THE HEARINGS COMMITTEE, PALMERSTON NORTH PALMERSTON NORTHDISTRICT COUNCIL. IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 IN THE MATTER

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE HEARINGS COMMITTEE, PALMERSTON NORTH PALMERSTON NORTHDISTRICT COUNCIL IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND IN THE MATTER of the Proposed Palmerston North District Plan and a submission by New Zealand Heavy Haulage Association Incorporated STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF Richard Newton Coles Senior Principal Planner 19 November 2015

2 statement of Evidence of Richard Newton Cotes 1.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERTISE 1.1 My name is Richard Newton Coles, and I am a Senior Principal Planner at Boffa Miskell Limited, a national firm of consulting planners, ecologists and landscape architects. I hold a Bachelor of Regional Planning Degree from Massey University. 1.2 I am a full member of the New Zealand Planning Institute and have over 20 years planning experience working for both local authorities and as a planning consultant. 1.3 I frequently represent clients regarding resource management matters including preparing resource consent applications, assessment of environmental effects and also preparing and submitting on resource management policy. 1.4 I have processed several applications for resource consent for relocated dwellings in the 1990's while working for Tauranga District Council. I have also been involved in policy reviews with respect to planning provisions for relocated dwellings for Tauranga City Council and Western Bay of Plenty District Council during plan reviews; and Waipa District Council, Ruepehu District Council and Hastings District Council as a witness called by the New Zealand Heavy Haulage Association (Inc). 1.5 In the late 1990's I personally relocated a character home into an existing neighbourhood in Tauranga. I therefore have first-hand experience in the process of relocating a home, including obtaining resource consent, building consent and the costs associated with reinstatement. 2.0 CODE OF CONDUCT 2.1 I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses issued as part of the Environment Court Practice Notes. I agree to comply with the code and am satisfied the matters I address in my evidence are within my expertise. I am not aware of any material STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF RICHARD NEWTON COLES_Final- Palmerslon North 1

3 Statement of Evidence of Richard Newton Cafes facts that I have omitted that might alter or detract from the opinions I express in my evidence. 3.0 SCOPE OF EVIDENCE 3.1 I have structured my evidence concisely with respect to the following matters. NZ Heavy Haulage Association Incorporated's submission; The objectives and policies of the Proposed Palmerston North District Plan relevant to relocated dwellings; The rules of the Proposed Palmerston North District Plan relevant to relocated dwellings and Council Planners report; The proposed replacement provisions for relocated dwellings; and Conclusion. 4.0 NZHHA SUBMISSION 4.1 The Proposed Palmerston North District Plan as notified identified relocated buildings within the rural zone as a controlled activity (Rule 9.6.2). 4.2 A submission was made on behalf of NZ Heavy Haulage Association Inc. The basis of the submission is that Councils throughout New Zealand are following the decision ofthe Environment Court in Central Otago (as referred to in the submission) to either classify relocated buildings as a permitted activity or apply the same performance standards that would apply to new in-situ dwellings as permitted activities. 4.3 Mr Ashton's legal submission has identified the reasons Why a permitted activity classification is sought by the submitter. 4.4 I summarise the key points I think are relevant when preparing planning policy for relocated buildings. STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF RiCHARD NEWTON COLES_Flnal- Pa[merston North 2

4 Submission by New Zealand Heavy Haulage Assac Inc. Statement of Evidence of Richard Newton Coles Are the provisions really necessary to address and identify potential environmental effects? Are the costs associated with a controlled activity resource consent process cost effective? Does Council have other means to achieve the desired environmental outcomes? Are the provisions clear and can they be consistently applied? Are the identified assessment criteria relevant? Is the application of the rules relevant to all buildings? 5.0 NECESSITY 5.1 The need for the objectives, policies and rules depends on the sensitivity of the receiving environment. In my opinion consideration of the 'permitted baseline' established by the District Plan rules is relevant to the consideration of whether specific provisions are necessary for relocated buildings. 5.2 The permitted baseline can be used to identify and compare environmental effects that are expressly provided for in a District Plan against activities that require consent. 5.3 The comparison of a relocated building to a new in-situ building will in most cases be very similar. This is why so many District Plans no longer reference relocatable buildings. 5.4 New rural residential subdivisions often have private covenants to prohibit relocated buildings. In most cases the marketplace is selfregulating against relocated buildings. It is therefore older rural properties without restrictive covenants that are most likely to receive relocated buildings. STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF RICHARD NEWTON COLES_Final- Palmerston North 3

5 Statement of Evidence of Richard Newton Coles 6.0 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ISSUES & EXPLANATION 6.1 I have reviewed the Rural zone Resource Management Issues (1 to 18) and confirm that while there are generic statements regarding the maintenance of amenity values (Points 5 and 9) the issue of relocatable dwellings or buildings do not feature as a resource management issue. Nor do relocatable buildings feature in the explanation. 7.0 RELEVANT OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RULES OF PROPOSED PALMERSTON NORTH DISTRICT PLAN 7.1 The Proposed Palmerston North District Plan has objectives and policies that seek to maintain and enhance amenity values and the character of the Rural Zone (listed below). There are no specific policies relating to relocated buildings. 7.2 Objective 2 encourages the effective and efficient use of natural and physical resources and Policy 2.2 provides guidance on the maintenance of amenity values: Policy 2.2 To ensure that the adverse effects ofactivities in the rural area are avoided, remedied or mitigated such that the amenities ofthe area and nearby urban areas are maintained. 7.3 The Plan recognises the importance of achieving the objectives and policies of the Rural Zone in an inexpensive manner and also the benefit of using statutory and non-statutory documents (See Methods Section 9.4). The checklist for reinstating a relocated dwelling is an example of how this can be effectively achieved. 8.0 CONSIDERATION OF PLANNERS REPORT 8.1 The Planner's report has rejected most of the submission points suggested by NZHHA and the decision of the Environment Court with respect to NZ Heavy Haulage Association Inc vs Central Otago District Council, which resulted in 'relocated buildings' being classified as a permitted activity in that District. STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF RICHARD NEWTON COlES_Final- Palmerston North 4

6 Statement of Evidence of Richard Newton Coles 8.2 In summary the Council planner's report recommends 1 : Classifying relocatable dwellings in the Rural zone as a controlled activity with non-notification clause. Accepts HHA submission that a definition of'relocatable building' is necessary and recommends adding this to the definitions section of the plan. Adding the "demolition or removal of buildings" as Permitted Activity List in Rule This excludes scheduled buildings. 8.3 My understanding of how these proposed rules will be implemented are as follows: Permitted Activities Removal or demolition ofa building. Controlled Activity - Nonnotified Relocated dwelling within a site or to a new site. Note: This includes dwellings, as a dwelling will fall within the definition of a building. The exception would be if a relocated dwelling were to be fall under the definition of relocated building. Note: The relocation of buildings is currently unclassified and likely to be treated by Council as a permitted activity. The Council planner appears to be stating that Rule should be relabelled Relocated BUildings as opposed to dwellings. This would catch the relocation of accessory buildings 8.4 The planner's recommendation and the proposed rules are a lillie unclear as identified in the above table. STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF RICHARD NEWTON COlES_Flnal- Palmerston North 5

7 Statement of Evidence of Richard Newton Coles 8.5 I agree that applying a controlled activity classification may be appropriate for relocated buildings where the receiving environment has special character or heritage values identified in the District Plan. However I disagree a resource consent process is necessary in most cases within Palmerston North District. Much of the rural area surrounding Palmerton North is for the purpose of primary production therefore having larger separation between farm dwellings. 8.6 A permitted activity classification with appropriate standards provides certainty for the person wishing to relocate a house i.e. that it can be completed without unnecessary risk, cost and delays associated with a resource consent process. 1\ also provides certainty for Council in that failure to comply with the permitted activity standards would result in a default to a RDA. 8.7 The money that would otherwise be channelled into the resource consent process (which could easily be between $3,000 and $5,000 plus any bond retained by Council) can be belter used towards reinstatement of the building on its new site or insulation improvements that make the building more sustainable. 8.8 Similarly, a performance bond taken to ensure a building is properly reinstated has a similar financial effect reducing the available funds the owner has to reinstate the building. Bonds increase the costs of the relocation process and can be set by PNCC at between $1,000 and $3,000 through its fees and charges. 8.9 The drivers for people relocating dwellings are often either affordability or architectural style of a dwelling i.e. a character home. Other Councils have determined that a relocated dwelling could be up to 1/3 more cost effective than building a new building in-situ. My experience is it can be even higher than this - closer to 50% depending on the quality and size of the building to be relocated The recycling of used buildings is consistent with the purpose of the RMA as it is making efficient use of physical resources. The planner's recommendation to enable the removal of buildings from STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF RICHARD NEWTON COLES_Flnal- Pa[merslon North 6

8 Statement of Evidence of Richard Nemon Coles a site as a permitted activity is supported as if a dwelling were proposed to be relocated to another district there may be a situation of cumulative consent costs, which are unnecessary Third party involvement in resource consent processes for relocated dwellings, in my experience, rarely results in better amenity outcomes. The concept of non-notification is supported in the event a permitted activity classification is not considered more appropriate by the hearings committee PROPOSED REPLACEMENT PROVISIONS HHA 9.1 I have reviewed the permitted activity rules and standards proposed on behalf of NZHHA. These have already been endorsed by the Environment Court as being appropriate. 9.2 The amendments (in bold) provide further clarity and reduce the risks of adverse effects on amenity values that may result from a relocated building being placed temporarily on drums (or similar) for a longer period of time The default activity classification of restricted discretionary activity is appropriate for relocated buildings that do not meet the permitted standards as it enables Council to consider matters of non-compliance. 9.4 I also agree with inclusion of a rule that restricted discretionary activities should be processed without notification due to the uncertainty and additional costs and time delays that can otherwise result. 9.5 The pre-inspection form in Schedule 2 of the Association's submission are appropriate to confirm compliance with the permitted activity standards. In my opinion the form is drafted to provide a high degree of certainty that a building will be reinstated to an acceptable standard, within an acceptable timeframe. 9.6 The form also helps identify reinstatement works that fall within the Building Act and those that fall within the Resource Management STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF RICHARD NEWTON COLES_Final Palmerslon North 7

9 Statement of Evidence of Richard Newton Cotes Act. This avoids duplication of process and promotes efficient use of the legislation PROPOSED DEFINITION OF RELOCATED BUILDING 10.1 The definition of 'relocated building' as recommended by the reporting planner is supported. This may need some careful consideration if the rules are to be changed to ensure the definitions and rules achieve the desired outcome CONCLUSION 11.1 I support the submission prepared by the NZ Heavy Haulage Association Inc and the suggested permitted activity performance standards and definitions It is my opinion a resource consent process is unnecessary for relocated buildings provided they comply with the bulk and location requirements and the proffered permitted activity performance standards for relocated buildings I also believe the financial costs of establishing and releasing bonds is unnecessary as it effectively slows down the reinstatement process as it restricts the owner's funds The definition of 'relocated building' should not trigger resource consent for moving a building on the same site or within a comprehensive development site Resource consents for relocated buildings not meeting the permitted activity standards should be classified as restricted Discretionary Activities processed without notification. This will avoid unnecessary costs that could otherwise be used for building improvement such as insulation. Richard Newton Coles Senior Principal Planner Boffa Miskell Limited 19 November 2015 STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF RICHARD NEWTON COLES_Final- Palmerston North 8