To: / Chief Executive
From: / General Manager
Subject: / Variation 15 – Subdivision Connectivity, Heritage, Special Provisions in Growth Areas and Miscellaneous Provisions
Committee / City Development Committee
Meeting Date: / 22 and 23 September 2008 / File Reference: / 124/8/16

1.0Executive Summary

1.1Purpose of the Report

1.1.1This report addresses the matters raised in the submissions and further submissions to the proposed Variation Number 15: Subdivision Connectivity, Heritage, Special Provisions in New Growth Areas and Miscellaneous Provisions (Variation 15).

1.1.2Variation 15 responds to and recognises a number of key changes in Council’s strategic policy direction, as espoused in the Hamilton City Council’s 2006-16 Long-Term Plan; and incorporating two of the key strategic directions, CityScope and Access Hamilton. The proposed changes promote the ongoing accuracy of the Plan and its alignment with recent Council policy and approach. The Variation also contributes towards the purpose and principles of the Resource Management Act 1991 continuing to be achieved over time.

1.1.3The Variation is broken into four main topics:

  • PART A: Amendments relating to Subdivision Connectivity affecting Policy Sections 4.2 and 4.4 and Rule Sections 6.2, 6.3 and 8.0;
  • PART B: Amendments relating to the Heritage Items Overlay affecting Policy Section 7.1 and Rule Section 2.3;
  • PART C: Amendments relating to the special provisions for commercial and community development in new growth areas affecting Rule 4.1.1e);
  • PART D: Minor amendments relating to miscellaneous provisions affecting Appendices 2.2-I and 2.4-I, Rule 5.1 and Planning Maps 11 and 11a.

1.2Summary of Key Points

1.2.1The majority of the submissions are in support or generally supportive of parts of the Variation, but also seek additional measures be approved by Council. However, there are also submissions received which do not support Variation No. 15.

1.2.2There are 13 submissions to Part A. Subdivision Connectivity. Eight submissions oppose the changes, raising concern over: the narrow focus of the proposed urban design principles; the City wide approach rather than applying to Greenfield areas only; the content of the ‘design guide’; and the threshold and extent of detail required to be provided with a concept plan.

1.2.3The proposed amendment introduces accepted urban design principles of connectivity and permeability into the District Plan and is a positive step towards creating sustainable communities. The proposed changes to the Proposed District Plan are as a result of Council’s policy approach and key strategic directions, CityScope and Access Hamilton. Connectivity and permeability assists in achieving a more sustainable pattern of development which is advocated by CityScope. Enhanced accessibility and connectivity in the layout of the local roads can promote an enhanced sense of identity within urban areas, improving access to community facilities and/or alternative transport modes.

1.2.4There are eight submissions to Part B. Heritage. From the eight submissions, three submissions oppose the proposed changes raising, amongst other matters the concern over the negative impact the protection of heritage has on the private property owner.

1.2.5The main thrust of Part B changes is a result of the elevated importance historic heritage now has under the Resource Management Act 1991. The proposed amendments ensure that the Proposed District Plan is up-to-date, accurate and is in accordance with the purpose and principles of the Resource Management Act 1991.

1.2.6Five submissionswere received in regard to Part C. Special Provisions in New Growth Areas. There are four submissions opposed to the deletion of Rule 4.1.1(e), citing the removal as being premature and unwarranted.

1.2.7Since the release of the decisions to the District Plan in 2001 Council has taken a proactive approach to the provision of community and commercial facilities in growth areas through the preparation of structure plans. The level of flexibility provided through Rule 4.1.1(e) undermines the urban design concepts promoted in structure plans and has the potential to generate poor planning outcomes. Accordingly, the deletion of Rule 4.1.1(e) supports the Council’s policy approach of having overall strategic planning to achieve sound resource management outcomes along with supporting the other strategies (i.e. Future Proof). The deletion assists with keeping the Proposed District Plan aligned with good planning practice and with the protection of long term planning.

1.2.8Part D. Miscellaneous Provisions proposed minor amendments to the Proposed District Plan to correct minor errors or inconsistencies to ensure that the Plan and Planning Maps continue to operate as effectively and efficiently as possible. One submission was received. The submission, by Hamilton City Council, identifies that an existing anomaly, should not to be amended as intended by Variation 15 as this will perpetuate the anomaly in the Plan. It is considered that the decision sought will allow for an existing inaccuracy to be rectified and ensures that the District Plan is up-to-date and accurate.

1.3Recommendation

1.3.1That the report, Variation 15 – Subdivision Connectivity, Heritage, Special Provisions in Growth Areas and Miscellaneous Provisions Variation be received;

1.3.2That the proposed amendments, as set out in Section 8.0 of the report be approved;

1.3.3That the decisions, in relation to each submission and further submission be made for the reasons as set out in Section 8.0 of the report.

2.0Introduction

2.1.1This report addresses the matters raised in the submissions and further submissions to the proposed Variation Number 15: Subdivision Connectivity, Heritage, Special Provisions in New Growth Areas and Miscellaneous Provisions (Variation 15).

2.1.2Variation No.15 was publicly notified on 28 October 2006 and submissions were received until 27 November 2006. A summary of the decisions requested by persons making submissions on the proposed Variation was then publicly notified on 3 March 2007, and closed on the 30 March 2007.

2.1.320 submissions which raised 140 submission points, along with 5 further submissions were received.

2.1.4In reaching its decisions, Council is required to consider the resource management issues raised in each submission and determine whether the relief sought, if any, should be accepted or rejected. If changes to the Variation are supported, the nature of these changes must be clearly identified and the supporting reasons provided for them.

3.0BACKGROUND

3.1.1Over time changes occur through the actions of Council, developers and landowners which necessitate changes being made to the Proposed District Plan. In addition, the operation of the Proposed District Plan brings to light minor errors or inconsistencies which require correction to ensure that the Plan continues to operate as effectively and efficiently as possible. Amendments to relevant legislation and Council policy and approach should also be reflected in changes to the District Plan as appropriate.

3.1.2Variation 15: Subdivision Connectivity, Heritage, Special Provisions in New Growth Areas and Miscellaneous Provisionsresponds to and recognises a number of key changes in Council’s strategic policy direction, as espoused in the Hamilton City Council’s 2006-16 Long-Term Plan, and adopted by Council’ on 30 June 2006.

3.1.3The Council’s Long-Term Plan incorporates two new strategic directions, known as CityScope and Access Hamilton. CityScope is Hamilton’s new urban design strategy which seeks to improve the quality and design of development and architecture within the City. Proposed Variation 15 is in part, a prefatorial response to the Councils CityScope Urban Design Strategy.

3.1.4The proposed changes promote the ongoing accuracy of the Plan and its alignment with recent Council policy and approach. The Variation also contributes towards the purpose and principles of the Resource Management Act 1991 continuing to be achieved over time.

3.1.5There are four main parts to Variation 15, Part A: Subdivision Connectivity’, Part B: Heritage, Part C: Special Provision in New Growth Areas and Part D: Miscellaneous Provisions’.

3.1.6The scope of Part A is firstly to introduce a new resource management issue relating to the relationship between subdivision layout and roading design; secondly, to add new objectives and related policies to the current resource management policy framework and thirdly, to make consequential changes to the Rules, Performance Standards and Planning Outcomes for Subdivisional Planning; including the introduction of a new Rule. The purpose of the new Rule is to provide illustrated design guidance to support and augment the interpretation of specific Rules within the Plan.

3.1.7Part B aligns the District Plan’s heritage protection with the elevated importance placed on heritage through the Resource Management Act. Parts C and D propose changes to the Proposed District Plan to promote the accuracy of the Plan and its alignment within recent Council policy and approach. The amendments are necessary to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources, by ensuring the Plan is up-to-date and accurate.

3.1.8Variation 15 is part of an ongoing programme of variations to ensure that, within the context of established policy; the Proposed District Plan is kept up-to-date, accurate and promotes the sustainable management of the natural and physical resources within the city.

4.0STATUTORY PROCESS – RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991 (RMA)

4.1.1The First Schedule of the Resource Management Act (RMA) 1991 enables a local authority to initiate a variation to a district plan.

4.1.2During the preparation of a variation, the local authority is required to undertake consultation in accordance with Clause 3 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991. For Variation 15, consultation has been undertaken with:

  • The Minister for the Environment
  • New Zealand Historic Places Trust
  • Environment Waikato
  • Waikato District Council
  • Waipa District Council
  • Nga Mana Toopu O Kirikiriroa
  • Staff in the Planning Guidance, Transportation, and Parks and Gardens units of Hamilton City Council.
  • In preparing a variation for notification, a section 32 reportis required to be prepared in order to address the resource management issues and provide an evaluation of the following:
  • The extent which each objective is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the Act; and
  • Whether having regard to efficiency and effectiveness, the policies, rules or methods are the most appropriate for achieving the objectives
  • As part of making decisions on the submissions and further submissions, an evaluation, in accordance with section 32 of alternatives, benefits and cost is required to be made. The evaluation must take into account :
  • The benefit and costs of policies, rules or other methods; and
  • 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.
  • The Variation was supported, at notification by a section 32 evaluation. In assessing the submissions and further submissions and in the formulation of recommendations, the original section 32 evaluation has been subject to further analysis. The re-evaluation reconfirmed the conclusions made in the original section 32 conclusions (refer to Appendix B).
  • Only those parts of the proposed Variation which have been challenged in the submissions are considered by Council during the hearing. Those parts of the Variation which have not been challenged by a submission are already effectively operative pursuant to section 19 of the Resource Management Act 1991.
  • Any person who has made either a submission or a further submission in support of or opposition to a submission to Proposed Variation No 15 has the right to be heard by the Hearings Committee if they indicate they wish to do so. The Committee may ask questions of any submitters appearing at the hearing in order to clarify the submitter’s position.
  • After hearing all the submitters, the Committee will make its decisions on the points raised in the submissions, which may include any consequential alterations arising out of submissions. The decisions shall include reasons for accepting or rejecting submissions.
  • The Council is required to give public notice of the availability of its decisions. It also shall serve a copy of the decisions on every party who made a submission or further submission.
  • Submitters not satisfied by Council’s decisions may lodge an appeal to the Environment Court against the whole or any part of the Council’s decision within fifteen working days of receiving the decision. The Variation will take full effect once all appeals to the Environment Court (if any) are resolved, and the Variation will then be merged into the Proposed District Plan.

5.0OVERVIEW OF THE VARIATION

5.1.1A copy of Variation No. 15 is attached in Appendix A. The Section 32 evaluations areattached in Appendix B (noting that the section 32 itself is split into two parts ‘A’ – subdivision connectivity and ‘B’ – Heritage, Special Provisions in New Growth Areas, and Miscellaneous Provisions). The following provides a brief summary of the contents of the variation.

5.1.2Variation No.15 proposes a number of amendments that are designed to align the Plan with the City’s strategic framework and principal strategies and to deal with a number of minor errors or inconsistencies. These amendments fall into four parts:

  • PART A: Amendments relating to Subdivision Connectivity affecting Policy Sections 4.2 and 4.4 and Rule Sections 6.2, 6.3 and 8.0;
  • PART B: Amendments relating to the Heritage Items Overlay affecting Policy Section 7.1 and Rule Section 2.3;
  • PART C: Amendments relating to the special provisions for commercial and community development in new growth areas affecting Rule 4.1.1e);
  • PART D: Minor amendments relating to miscellaneous provisions affecting Appendices 2.2-I and 2.4-I, Rule 5.1 and Planning Maps 11 and 11a.

5.2PURPOSE AND CONTEXT OF THE FOUR PARTS OF VARIATION 15

Part A - Amendments relating to Subdivision Connectivity

5.2.1The process of land subdivision is the first stage in developing the City’s form and sets the pattern for subsequent built development. Any deficiencies in the level of connectivity and permeability established at this stage are extremely difficult to correct later on as land ownership becomes more fragmented and built development begins to take place. District Plan monitoring indicates that whilst connectivity is being achieved with collector roads, this should extend further down the roading hierarchy to include the local road network.

5.2.2The City Design Strategy for Hamilton, CityScope advocates opportunities to influence the design of subdivisions towards a more sustainable pattern of development, in particular, the potential for better connectivity within and between subdivisions. Council recognises the importance of accessibility and connectivity in the layout of the local roads and can promote an enhanced sense of identity within urban areas, improving access to community facilities and/or alternative transport modes.

5.2.3A review of Part 1.0 of the District Plan highlighted several areas where the urban design principles of connectivity and accessibility could be more consistently applied in the Plan’s Objective and Policy framework to promote a more integrated planning approach to the subdivision of land. Consequential amendments to the Rules and Performance Standards relating to subdivision were also necessary to implement the revised policy framework.

5.2.4Design Guidance was developed to address subdivisional connectivity and permeability for residential areas. This guidance was incorporated into the Plan to support the General Provisions under Rule 6.2.2: Consideration of Subdivision Proposals.

5.2.5Since the formulation of the guidance Council has introduced two other strategies which support the principles of the Guidance, these strategies being the Creativity and Identity strategy and Vista – the Hamilton City Design Guide. Vista in particular specifically promotes the concept of access within the City, aiming to ensure that Hamilton is easy to get around so that everyone can access services and facilities. Vista also supports the consideration of the overall circulation network and connections between existing and new places at an early stage which reinforces pre-design meetings as an invaluable tool.

5.2.6Within this context the subdivisional amendments proposed in Variation 15 should be regarded as a positive step towards creating sustainable communities.

Part B - Amendments relating to Heritage

5.2.7The Resource Management (Amendment) Act 2003 brought a new focus onto the debate with the elevation of heritage matters to being matters of national importance in relation to which Councils should recognise and provide for in undertaking their functions. At the same time Council provided a forum for the consideration of such matters through development of CityScope, the City’s urban design strategy prepared within the context of the New Zealand Urban Design Protocol. CityScope was one of the first strategies to emerge as part of a new strategic framework signalled in the 2006-2016 Long Term Council Community Plan (LTCCP). It established a framework and a programme of actions, amongst which was a clear intent to refine the City’s approach to resource management matters to take a more sensitive and responsive approach to matters defining local character, distinctiveness and identity. The CityScope vision centres on the creation of a sustainable and “distinctive” Hamilton.

5.2.8Consultation on the draft CityScope was undertaken as part of the LTCCP. The community response was overwhelmingly supportive and, accordingly, Council adopted CityScope in July 2006, before Variation 15 was publicly notified.

5.2.9More recently, the LTCCP strategic framework has been bolstered by development of the City’s Creativity and Identity strategy. Based on a range of core principles the Strategy advances the proposition that Hamilton is an urban village where the principal focus is on the relationship that people have with their surroundings. Enhancing the aesthetic experience is a key project that, amongst other matters, envisages a city:

  • Where our rich cultural history is translated into our built environment;
  • That celebrates and enhances our heritage;
  • That fosters a culture for creativity through an innovative and fresh administration of the rules and regulations of the city;
  • Where areas of special character are recognised and given a lasting future.
  • That builds sustainability into urban form, reflecting the connections between the land and the city
  • Since work commenced on Variation 15, the programme of actions signalled by CityScope has taken shape. In terms of actions relating to the Proposed District Plan this programme includes additional proposed variations promoting a design led structure planning proposals for new Greenfield areas, proposals being initiated for the recognition of heritage and character values in Hamilton East and Frankton, and the development of a citywide design guide aimed at generally raising awareness and interest in design matters and promoting debate around design solutions. The influence of the Creativity and Identity strategy can be seen in the distinct focus that new proposals are placing on people and their environment rather than simply the design of physical objects.
  • Within this context Variation 15 can be regarded as part of an emerging programme of district plan variations and other initiatives intended to secure better alignment with the City’s strategic framework and principal strategies, notably CityScope and the Creativity and Identity Strategy.

Part C - Amendments relating to Commercial and Community Development in New Growth Areas