HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL
Environmental
Management Committee
Wednesday 16 November 2011
SUBJECT: Proposed Change 4 "Managing the
Built Environment"
Reason for Report
1. This
paper presents a final draft plan change and associated section 32 evaluation
summary report for adoption. The plan change (‘Change 4’) proposes amendments
to the Regional Resource Management Plan, particularly the Regional Policy
Statement parts of the RRMP. Change 4 relates to the
‘built environment’ and contains provisions for sustainable urban growth and
integrated use and development of infrastructure. Preparation of Change 4 was a
specific action required for implementation of the Heretaunga Plains Urban
Development Strategy (HPUDS). Change 4 also includes a limited number of
provisions that are relevant to those parts of the region outside the
‘Heretaunga Plains sub-region.’
Background
2. A
draft RPS Change was presented to the Committee in August 2011. The Council
endorsed that draft change and wider community engagement was subsequently
undertaken by staff. After receiving an update report from staff in October,
the Council agreed to defer adoption of a RPS Change for public notification.
The deferral was to allow additional time for:
2.1. Stakeholder
feedback could ‘fit’ timing to finalise a plan change and present a ‘Final
Draft Change’ to the Committee. 15 written responses were received on the
draft;
2.2. Follow-up
actions as a result of the HPUDS Implementation Committee (ie: specific legal
advice on implications of defining and/or mapping urban limits in the RPS); and
2.3. A
broader legal review of the draft change by Simpson Grierson solicitors.
3. Since
the update in October, staff have:
3.1. improved
the draft change by incorporating comments and recommendations arising from the
legal review by Simpson Grierson;
3.2. incorporated
feedback having merit and relevance from key stakeholders and wider public;
3.3. clarified
provisions for defining future greenfield growth areas and urban limits for the
Heretaunga Plains sub-region, and incorporated a new policy for review and
revision of such areas;
3.4. finalised
a s32 evaluation summary report, particularly accommodating any revisions
arising from feedback and legal review.
4. Meanwhile,
Hastings District Council has virtually completed work assessing intensification
to complement RPS Change’s provisions that relate to urban intensification,
greenfield growth in limited circumstances, limited rural lifestyle
developments, and provision of appropriate infrastructural services.
5. At
the time of writing this paper, the HPUDS Implementation Committee was
scheduled to meet on Monday 14 November 2011. That Committee will receive a
briefing from staff on the advice received from Simpson Grierson regarding
definition and mapping urban limits in the RPS etc. Copies of Change 4 (as set
out in Attachment 2) will be circulated to members of the Implementation
Committee.
Feedback on draft change
6. A
draft Change was released for informal public comment in October. A range of
matters were raised – some clearly linked to the draft change, while others
remarked on unrelated themes and council activities.
7. The
Final Draft Change (Attachment 2) incorporates amendments arising from feedback
that staff considered to have merit and thereby improve the quality and content
of Change 4. Not all public feedback was accommodated. Key themes arising
which have been accommodated included:
7.1. General support for
content and direction in Change 4;
7.2. Greater recognition of
reverse sensitivity impacts of urban development on rural activities and
strategic infrastructure;
7.3. Clarification of the
greenfield areas for ‘future’ development above and beyond those areas already
identified/zoned in district plans for urban development; and
7.4. Clarification of methods
to be used to implement policies.
8. Some of the themes not
incorporated into Change 4 include:
8.1. Managing urban
development on the Ruataniwha Plains in a similar manner to that within the
Heretaunga Plains sub-region;
8.2. Identifying outstanding
natural features and landscapes for protection from urban development; and
8.3. Detailed provisions
relating specifically to electricity transmission and renewable electricity
generation.
Key features of Change 4
9. Like
its earlier draft form, the Change 4 is effectively a ‘bundle’ of amendments
covering a variety of themes. Primarily, it will insert policies into the
RPS. It does not insert or amend any rules in the RRMP. Policies relevant to
the Heretaunga Plains sub-region only include:
9.1. definition
of urban limits for growth to 2045, but does not map those urban limits;
9.2. emphasising
that future urban development must avoid compromising versatile land and must
maintain compact, yet well-designed, urban form;
9.3. prescribing
average density targets for residential developments;
9.4. identifying
areas where future residential greenfield growth is appropriate;
9.5. highlighting
areas where future greenfield growth is inappropriate (for one reason another);
9.6. reinforcing
Napier and Hastings cities as commercial and business cores, but enables
provision of business land up to 2045 where appropriate;
9.7. limiting
creation of additional lifestyle allotments and lifestyle developments in rural
areas.
10. Policies
applicable to the entire Hawke's Bay region include those which:
10.1. emphasise the need for any development to be integrated with
provision of suitable infrastructure and services;
10.2. manage effects of activities on key essential infrastructure and
utility services;
10.3. identify a range of matters that decision-makers should take into
account when considering any type of development proposal.
11. Change
4 does not map ‘urban limits’ in the RPS, however, there is a map of
appropriate residential greenfield growth areas within the Heretaunga Plains
sub-region (Appendix B). These greenfield growth areas are the same as those
identified in HPUDS. Legal advice confirms that this approach is not unlawful,
in fact many other RPSs have defined and mapped urban limits and areas suitable
for greenfield development.
12. Being
a change to the RPS, territorial authorities will have to give effect to the
amended RPS through their respective district plans. They will also have to
have regard to the amended RPS when considering resource consent applications
and the like.
Timing of effect of rules (s86B, RMA)
13. Change
4 proposes amendments to the RPS only. The proposal does not include any
amendments to existing rules or introduction of new rules. Consequently, s86B
of RMA is not relevant so the Council does not need to contemplate when rules
will have legal effect.
14. For
the avoidance of doubt, from the time it is notified, the objective and
policies in Change 4 will be something that decision-makers may take into
account (eg: when assessing resource consent applications, or say, a district
council considering a rezoning request to change a district plan). However,
any consideration would need to be mindful that Change 4 still needs to run its
course through the submissions > hearing > decisions > appeal process
in Schedule 1 of the RMA.
Options considered and Section 32 of RMA
15. In
preparing a plan change, local authorities have a duty under s32 of the RMA to
evaluate a number of matters:
(3) An evaluation must examine —
(a) the extent to which each objective is
the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of this Act; and
(b) whether, having regard to their
efficiency and effectiveness, the policies, rules, or other methods are the
most appropriate for achieving the objectives.
(3A) This subsection applies to a rule that
imposes a greater prohibition or restriction on an activity to which a national
environmental standard applies than any prohibition or restriction in the
standard. The evaluation of such a rule must examine whether the prohibition or
restriction it imposes is justified in the circumstances of the region or
district.
(4) For the purposes of the examinations
referred to in subsections (3) and (3A), an evaluation must take into account —
(a) the benefits and costs of policies, rules, or
other methods; and
(b) the risk of acting or not acting if
there is uncertain or insufficient information about the subject matter of the
policies, rules, or other methods.
16. The
RMA also requires that a report be prepared that summarises the evaluation and
gives reasons for that evaluation. That report must be made available for
public inspection at the same time as the change is publicly notified
(under s32(6)).
17. Staff
engaged Opus International Consultants to prepare the s32 report. Opus had
previously prepared initial drafting of Change 4 earlier this year. The s32
evaluation summary report is set out in Attachment 1 (under separate cover).
That report is not a comprehensive record of all evaluation, Council
discussions, stakeholder discussions and assessments undertaken in the course
of preparing HPUDS and Change 4. It should be noted that the report is not
part of the plan change itself.
18. Council
now needs to consider whether it should adopt the ‘Section 32 Evaluation
Summary Report’ (Attachment 1) and make it publicly available at the same time
as Change 4 is publicly notified.
Other Council initiatives relating to urban growth
and integration of infrastructure
19. Change
4 is only one action arising from HPUDS for which the Regional Council is the
lead agency. There are over 60 other actions identified for implementation of
HPUDS by a range of councils and other agencies.
20. The
purpose of the RPS also limits what Change 4 can and cannot cover – even if
they may be related to urban growth and infrastructure anywhere in Hawke's
Bay. Some of the things that Change 4 does not do are:
20.1. specify rules restricting use of land, air, water or other
activities commonly restricted by district plans and regional plans;
20.2. fully action all of the Government’s National Policy Statements
released to date;
20.3. amend zoning of land in district plans, although it can give
direction to areas where zoning should be changed in future to accommodate
growth requirements determined in HPUDS;
20.4. determine budget and funding requirements for the Council’s
implementation of HPUDS or any infrastructure development proposals across the
region;
20.5. does not tackle each of the 60+ actions arising from HPUDS, but it
will be a key action central to many other initiatives led by councils and/or
other agencies. These include things such as revisions to district plans,
review of transport strategies, additional hazard research, reviews of
demographic projections and census data, assessments of how and where housing can
be intensified, and so on.
Next steps
21. Assuming
Council agrees to adopt Change 4 and publicly notifies it in a matter of weeks,
the RMA’s formal submission, hearing and decision-making process will follow.
The submission period must be at least 20 working days. This would mean the
submission period spans the Christmas/New Year holiday period, so submissions
would close early 2012.
22. Staff
would summarise any submissions received and then invite further submissions
that can only be in support or opposition to those original submissions. After
further submissions close, then preparations will be made for a hearing of
submissions. Depending on number and complexity of submissions received, a
hearing could be held as early as November 2012.
23. The
HPUDS Implementation Committee has previously recommended that the Regional
Council appoint a panel of commissioners to hear submissions on Change 4,
whereby the panel include one representative from Napier City Council and one
representative from Hastings District Council, and other representatives as
nominated by the Regional Council. This would obviously differ from a typical
regional plan change which would usually be heard by the Regional Council’s own
Hearings Committee. At this time, the Council could pass a resolution agreeing
to appoint a panel of HPUDS-partner representatives. If Council decides to
appoint a panel to hear submissions on Change 4, then that decision would take
away any responsibility the Regional Planning Committee may have (once operational)
to appoint a hearing panel for Change 4.
Financial and Resource Implications
24. Preparation
of Change 4 and progressing Change 4 through the submission and hearings phases
is provided for in Project 192. No additional external expenditure budget is
needed at this time. Internal staff time is also already catered for within
existing budgets.
Decision Making Process
25. Council
is required to make a decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local
Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained
in Part 6 Sub Part 1 of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the
following:
25.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or
affect a strategic asset.
25.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by
legislation.
25.3. The decision does not fall within the definition of Council’s policy
on significance.
25.4. The persons affected by this decision are all those persons with an
interest in the region’s built environments and infrastructure, but
nevertheless, they will have opportunities to make submissions when Change 4 is
publicly notified.
25.5. Options that have been considered are detailed in the attached
section 32 evaluation summary report.
25.6. The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.
25.7. Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and
decided, and also the persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in
the decisions made, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision
without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in
the decision because the Resource Management Act allows
people to have an opportunity to submit on Change 4 following a decision by
Council to publicly notify it.
|
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the
Environmental Management Committee recommends that Council:
1. Agrees that the decisions to be made
are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted policy
on significance and that Council can exercise its discretion under Sections
79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 and make decisions on
this issue without conferring directly with the community and persons likely
to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision because the Resource Management Act
allows people to have an opportunity to submit on Change 4 following a
decision by Council to publicly notify it.
2. Adopts the “Section 32 Evaluation Summary: Change 4 –
Managing the Built Environment” (Attachment 1) and make it available for
public inspection.
3. Adopts Change 4 to the Regional Resource Management Plan
(Attachment 2) for public notification.
4. Agrees that a panel of commissioners
be appointed to hear submissions on Change 4 and make recommendations back to
the Council, with that panel’s composition being as follows:
4.1. One representative to be nominated by Napier City Council;
4.2. One representative to be nominated by Hastings District Council;
4.3. Mr Mike Mohi as iwi representative nominated by the Regional
Council; and
4.4. Councillor Scott (Panel Chair) and Councillor von Dadelszen (Panel
Deputy Chair).
|
|
Gavin Ide
Team Leader Policy
|
Helen Codlin
Group
Manager Strategic Development
|
Attachment/s
|
1
|
Final Draft
Change 4 Section 32 Report
|
|
Under
Separate Cover
|
|
2
|
Final Draft
Change 4 Built Environment
|
|
Under
Separate Cover
|
