Draft Plan Change 2: Pukehangi Heights

Outline: • Overview of Plan Change:

• Decision re: Notification

• High level understanding if you get questions from the public

• Key Issue: Stormwater

• Overview of Streamlined Plan Change Process

• Decision on whether to use SPP or standard plan change process

• And note, we’re at the very beginning of the formal process now.

Background – Future growth area

Sumner and Hunt Blocks identified in the District Plan as Future Growth Areas

District Plan anticipated that there was sufficient zoned land – 2021.

Mixture of Residential and Rural Residential Development anticipated within these blocks.

Background: Te Arawa Group Holdings

Land above Matipo Ave

Development Plan in District Plan enables the development of a Retirement Village: Twin Oaks

Provisions appealed through District Plan review

What has been done: Background:

Council has been working with land owners to develop a plan change for Pukehangi Heights

Goal:

• Provision of housing

• Quality Outcome

• Certainty

Broad Overview of Draft Plan Change: • Residential development on terraces

• Rural Residential development on escarpment face

• Potential for small scale commercial centres adjoining Pukehangi Road

• Provision for medium density housing in specified locations (housing choice)

• Specific provisions to address constraints

Planning Framework Proposed: Goal: Facilitate Housing

Structure Plan:

• Researched and consulted on;

• Issues addressed therefore:

• Certainty for all parties

• Consent simple

• Therefore resource consents are non-notified

Alternative pathway:

• Discretionary Consent

• Potential for notification

Landscape Values: Caldera Rim • Landscape led approach to Structure Plan

• Peer reviewed by Boffa Miskell

• Subdivision on escarpment face and escarpment transition areas requires a Landscape Assessment;

• Design controls on buildings in more visible locations;

• Partial revegetation of escarpment face and upper escarpment

• Integration with Parklands

Stormwater – Context and Regulatory Context

• Stormwater is the most important issue with this plan change:

• Development Area located above existing urban area;

• There are existing flooding risks, e.g. Riri St Industrial Area, Lower Utuhina

• Regional Council:

• Guidance – 80%

• Natural Hazards Policies

• Undertake Assessments

Stormwater – What have we done • OPUS Reports:

• Assessment of Sites:

• Ability to achieve 80%

• Low Impact Urban Design Principles (LIUD)

• Assessment of Impact on Downstream Network

• Peer Review by Tonkin and Taylor

• Unable to confirm downstream effects until full modeling of the catchment is completed.

• BoPRC has this work underway.

Stormwater Approach of Plan Change • Rule framework is intended to:

• Ensure that development can not occur until the full catchment modeling has been completed.

• This will mean that at subdivision stage there will be a full assessment of the impacts on the downstream network.

• Applicants will need to show that they are not increasing the risk to downstream areas in-line with the RPS Hazard Policies.

Stormwater – Risks • The Peer Review has identified that there is a risk in taking this

approach.

• This risk is a reduction in the number of houses (viability of development). It is not an increased risk of downstream flooding.

• Other Checks: Discharge consent and earthworks consent from BoPRC.

• Inclusion of Development Area in Comprehensive Storm water Consent.

Natural Hazards: Other Hazards • To meet Natural Hazard Policies of RPS assessment also required of

other hazards and confirmation that a low level of risk achieved:

• Landslide:

• specific assessments required at subdivision stage

• Liquefaction

• Active Faults

• Geothermal

Consultation – Already Undertaken Previous documents: District Plan and Spatial Plan

Statutory Parties:

• MfE + other Crown

• BoPRC

• Tangata Whenua (Ngati Kea Ngati Tuara)

Additional consultation:

• Parklands (Water supply and fencing)

• Residents adjoining Sumner (Density, overland flow path, vehicle access)

• Matipo Ave (Traffic effects, best outcomes)

• Drop in Session, incl public feedback (7 Feedback Forms)

Consultation – Most Common Issues Raised • Traffic

• Matipo Ave

• Downstream network (potential for congestion)

• Pukehangi Road (safety, vibration, glare, noise)

• Stormwater

• Flooding

• Density

• Residential 1 (450m2)

• Medium Density

Next Steps (if happy to approve): • And note – we’re at the beginning of the formal process (so we’re at the

start line)

• If happy with information provided next section is on use of either the:

• standard plan change process; or

• Streamlined Plan Change Process

Comparison between Processes

Standard Plan Change Process Streamlined Plan Change Process

Full public notification Minister Approves the use of the SPP*

Submissions Full public notification

Further Submissions Submissions

Pre-hearing Meetings (optional) Further submissions

Hearings by Qualified Hearing Commissioner Pre-hearing meetings

Decision to Council Hearings by Qualified Hearing Commissioner

Must have one Independent Hearing Commissioner

Ability for Submitters to Appeal Interim decision:

Submitters provide feedback Fine tuning only

Ability for a limited range of other parties to appeal Final Decision -> Minister*

Mediation

Environment Court Hearing

(if mediation not successful)

Decision

7 months to 2+ years 9 - 10 ½ months

Justification for using SPP • Existing zoning in District Plan;

• Spatial Plan;

• Difficulties in meeting longer term targets in Housing Accord + agreement to undertake plan changes includes rezoning;

• Level of consultation to date;

• Additional steps proposed in process to ensure robust.

Notes re: SPP • Minister needs to approve the use of the SPP

• The Minister – not Council – make the final decision on the plan change

• Major difference in process is removal of appeal rights (for all parties)

• Means hearing very focused