|
Resource
Manangement Committee
26 June 2015
|
|
Potential
Variations to Proposed District Plan 2012 - Implementation matters
Record No: R/15/5/8828
Author: Courtney
Ellison, Senior Resource Management Planner - Policy
Approved by: Bruce
Halligan, GM - Environment and Community
☐
Decision ☒ Recommendation ☐ Information
Purpose
1 The
purpose of this report is to outline some potential changes to be made to the
Proposed District Plan, in particular around some implementation matters which
have arisen since the plan has had legal effect and been implemented by the
Resource Management team.
Executive
Summary
2 With
the implementation of the Proposed District Plan, some potential improvements
that could be made to the plan have been identified.
3 To
make the changes suggested in this report, a variation would have to be
undertaken in accordance with the process outlined in the Resource Management
Act 1991. This process includes public notification with two
opportunities for the public to make submissions, and holding hearings for the
submitters to speak on their submission.
|
Recommendation
That the Resource
Management Committee:
a) Receives
the report titled “Potential Variations to Proposed District Plan 2012
- Implementation matters” dated 19 June 2015.
b) Determines
that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant
in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.
c) Determines
that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local
Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and
in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require
further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of
costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision
on this matter.
d) Endorse
staff continuing with the preparation of a draft variation to the Proposed
District Plan.
|
Content
Background
4 With
some parts of the Proposed Plan now having legal effect, some implementation
issues have arisen. Some small changes could be made to the plan to
improve the clarity and efficiency of the rules in achieving the outcomes
intended with the plan.
5 The
potential amendments that could be made include changes to:
• The
Urban and Fiordland/Rakiura Zone rules around earthworks affecting sites
listed in the historic heritage schedule, to align with the resolution agreed
with Heritage New Zealand as part of their appeal on the associated Rural
Zone provisions.
• The
definitions, in particular the definition of property, and other associated
definitions to assist in the interpretation of the Rural Zone dwellings rule,
the definition of farmers’ markets, distribution lines and networks, and
adding a definition for notional boundaries in relation to the noise
provisions.
• The
formatting and rewording of the Industrial Zone rules for consistency with the
other similar clauses in the plan.
• The
signage rules to clarify interpretation, the relationship between the different
aspects of the rule and to provide more practical criteria. For example,
sandwich boards come in standard sizes which all exceed the limitations Council
has in the plan, therefore any sandwich board would technically require a
resource consent, which was not the intention of the plan.
• The
Fiordland/Rakiura Zone rules to clarify the cascade of rules, and what activity
status applies when certain criteria of the permitted or controlled activities
cannot be met.
• The
General Urban Standards to remove standards where consent would be required
anyway to avoid confusion around the activity status that applies, and clarify
what height recession plane rules apply within the Commercial Precincts.
• The
planning maps to illustrate wastewater treatment facilities in a consistent
manner.
• The
provisions relating to ‘other buildings’ in the Rural Zone, in
particular how above ground effluent tanks are provided for.
Issues
6 As
outlined in the introduction of this report, those aspects of the Proposed
District Plan that have not been appealed now have legal effect and therefore
the rules and interpretation of the plan is now being applied. This has
highlighted some areas where the plan could benefit from some improvements.
Factors to Consider
Legal
and Statutory Requirements
7 Any
changes to the District Plan will be required to follow the variation process
as outlined in the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). This process includes
assessing the benefits and costs of the changes through a Section 32 report,
public notification of the changes, submissions and hearings, with the final
decisions of the Council being subject to appeal.
Community
Views
8 Community
views would be sought through the formal consultation process outlined in the
First Schedule of the RMA. This includes two opportunities for making
submissions, and the opportunity for submitters to speak on the content of
their submissions at a hearing.
Costs
and Funding
9 There
are costs associated with undertaking a variation, including staff time,
consultation costs, printing/distribution of documents, public notices and
hearings. The work would be undertaken within current District Plan
budgets.
Policy
Implications
10 The
District Plan should always be reviewed to ensure it meets the requirements of
the community and is achieving its intended outcomes. This proposed
variation is intended to continue to ensure the District Plan is clear and easy
to use.
Analysis
Options Considered
11 Council
has the following options:
• Option
1: Retain the current provisions
• Option
2: Proceed with a variation to make changes to the plan which further
clarify how the plan is to be interpreted.
12 Each
of these options is explored further below.
Analysis of Options
Option
1
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
· No
plan change/variation would be required
|
· Any
uncertainty that there is currently with the provisions of the plan will
continue, and there will be a reliance on informal internal procedures to
ensure consistency amongst the planners
|
Option
2
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
· More
certainty and consistency in the implementation of the District Plan
|
· None
|
Assessment of Significance
13 It
is not considered that these potential changes to the Proposed District Plan
are significant in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy
because they are only intended to improve the clarity of the District Plan
provisions.
Recommended Option
14 It
is recommended that Option 1 is endorsed and that a draft variation is prepared
to address those issues outlined in this report.
Next Steps
15 If
the Resource Management Committee recommends the variation be progressed, this
recommendation will be taken to Council for approval to start the variation
process.
16 If
Council approves of a variation being undertaken the process would be as
follows:
• Develop
a draft variation and undertake the Section 32 cost benefit analysis.
• Report
to RMC with the draft variation and Section 32 report, seeking a recommendation
to Council to approve the variation for public notification in accordance with
the Resource Management Act (RMA).
• Report
to Council seeking approval to notify the variation in accordance with the RMA.
• Publicly
notify the variation for submissions.
• Summarise
submissions received.
• Publicly
notify the Summary of Submissions, for further submissions.
• Staff
prepare Section 42 Recommending Reports for the hearings.
• Hearings.
• Hearing
panel to make and release decisions, which are then subject to appeal.
17 The
Committee will note that another report has also been prepared for this meeting
outlining another variation which could be progressed in relation to the Rural
Settlement Areas.
If the Committee endorsed both variations proceeding, they could be notified
together to reduce costs and staff time associated with the public notification
and submission process.
Attachments
There are no attachments for
this report.
|
Resource
Manangement Committee
26 June 2015
|
|
Potential Variation to the Proposed District Plan 2012
- Rural Settlement Areas
Record No: R/15/6/10262
Author: Courtney
Ellison, Senior Resource Management Planner - Policy
Approved by: Bruce
Halligan, GM - Environment and Community
☐
Decision ☒ Recommendation ☐ Information
Purpose
1 The
purpose of this report is to outline a potential change to be made to the
Proposed District Plan, to create a new ‘Rural Settlement Area’
providing for townships that are currently within the Rural Zone.
Executive Summary
2 Decisions
on the Proposed Southland District Plan 2012 were released in October 2014 and
identified that a future piece of work was required to address how townships
such as Orepuki which are currently zoned Rural could be better provided for.
3 The
new plan imposes some constraints for these townships in terms of setbacks from
other dwellings and some boundaries as well as other activities in the Rural
Zone. It is suggested that a variation could be progressed to establish a
Rural Settlement Area overlay for the Rural Zone to provide for townships such
as Orepuki.
4 Matters
that would need to be considered include the boundaries of any settlement
areas, effluent disposal, servicing, setbacks from other dwellings or property
boundaries, hazards, and provision for the continuation of rural activities.
5 The
different options available to the Resource Management Committee are outlined
in this report along with the process that would need to be followed, including
requirements under the Resource Management Act (RMA), should a variation be
progressed.
|
Recommendation
That the Resource
Management Committee:
a) Receives
the report titled “Potential Variation to the Proposed District Plan
2012 - Rural Settlement Areas” dated 16 June 2015.
b) Determines
that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant
in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.
c) Determines
that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local
Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and
in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require
further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of
costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision
on this matter.
d) Recommends
to Council the scoping and drafting of a variation to the
Proposed District Plan to create a new Rural Settlement Area for Orepuki
|
Content
Background
6 The
review of the Southland District Plan has recently been undertaken, and aside
from a few provisions that have been appealed, the Proposed District Plan 2012
is largely operative. The Proposed District Plan retained the Rural
zoning over a number of townships such as Orepuki, Athol, Fortrose, Garston,
Gorge Road etc. but the rules associated with building a dwelling in the Rural
Zone have changed. In particular the ability to construct one dwelling
per certificate of title is now subject to the other criteria being met
including the need to provide a 150 metre separation between
dwellings. There are also other potential constraints, for example in
Orepuki, the part of the township to the west of State Highway 99 is also
covered by the Visual Amenity overlay which imposes additional criteria
relating to setbacks from roads and building materials. This has raised
the potential need for a change to be made to those rules to better provide for
the ability for new dwellings to be constructed in these townships, thereby
assisting the future consolidation and growth of these settlements.
7 A
potential zoning change for Orepuki and Athol has been discussed since 2006,
where a report was presented to Community Boards (CBs) and the Resource
Management Committee investigating a potential plan change to make some
townships an Urban Resource Area. While the CBs endorsed a plan change
going ahead, a plan change was not progressed for Orepuki as it was considered
there was sufficient provision of vacant land to meet the community needs until
2026, there was a lack of demonstrated demand, the undesirability of urban
sprawl along the coast and the impact this would have on the visual
landscape. Work was also undertaken in 2008 for a potential plan change
in Athol but this plan change was not progressed as a change in the Community
Development Area (CDA) membership resulted in a loss of support for such a
change.
8 Brian
McGrath, on behalf of the Orepuki CDA Subcommittee lodged a submission on the
Proposed District Plan requesting a more permissive regime, and greater
provision for the development of existing rural residential settlement
areas. The Hearing Committee’s decision was to retain the general
approach of the Proposed District Plan as notified, but recognised that a
specific piece of work was required to look at how rural residential areas such
as Orepuki could be better provided for within the plan, to facilitate the
future growth of these areas around the existing settlements.
9 The
following townships in the Rural Zone could be considered as part of a Rural
Settlement Area variation to the Plan: Orepuki, Athol, Dipton, Drummond,
Fortrose, Garston, Gorge Road, Limehills/Centre Bush, Thornbury, Waikawa,
Woodlands and Curio Bay.
Issues
Settlement Area Boundaries
10 Attached
are a series of aerial maps showing the current configuration of the townships
which could be subject to a Rural Settlement overlay. Boundaries of any
overlay would be established through consultation with those communities.
Effluent Disposal
11 One
of the potential constrains on development is the ability for each site to
adequately dispose of wastewater on-site. Reports have been prepared by
Environmental Consultant Veena Boon, which considers what the potential
constraints are in Orepuki and Athol, and what wastewater requirements there
might be. The report for Athol in particular identifies a number of
limitations on disposing of wastewater on-site including the potential for
potable water contamination, flooding risks, and the rapidly draining soil
category.
12 For
other towns which might be covered by a Rural Settlement overlay, no assessment
of the on-site wastewater requirements and capabilities has been undertaken to
date. This is further work that would need to be undertaken should
Council decide to progress with scoping a variation for those other townships.
13 Effluent
disposal is required to be disposed of in accordance with the New Zealand
Standard 1547:2012 “On-site Domestic Wastewater Management”.
Environment Southland also requires a 50 metre setback from potable water
abstraction points. Environment Southland records confirm there are two
potable water abstraction points in Orepuki, and numerous points within
Athol. These will therefore need to be considered as part of any
development proposals.
Servicing (Power and
Telephone)
14 A
further matter to be considered is that currently the provision of services
such as power and telephone are not required for land use applications (eg to
build a dwelling on an existing title), however it is expected that they will
be provided for all new allotments created through a subdivision. It is
not anticipated that this current practice would change with this proposed
variation, however potential purchasers of existing sections would need to be
cautious of this, and therefore it may be prudent to note the uncertainty about
power and telephone connections on the relevant property files so that it is
clear if a Land Information Memorandum is requested by a potential purchaser in
the future.
Other Development
Constraints
15 Under
the Proposed District Plan there are a number of new setbacks which apply to
dwellings in the Rural Zone. The setbacks/provisions of particular
relevance to these Rural townships are:
· 150 metres
from another dwelling in separate ownership (or consented dwelling or building
platform)
· 4.5 metres
from the boundary of any other road (other than a State Highway where the speed
limit is greater than 80km/hr)
· Within
the Visual Amenity Landscape overlay, 20 metres from the boundary of any
formed road, and 4.5 metres from the boundary of any unformed road
· Building
platforms and access not to be on the seaward side of the Coastal Hazard Line.
As part of a variation, some of
these setbacks could be removed or reduced, however consideration would still
need to be given to matters such as the coastal hazards, and the impact on the
landscape.
Hazards
16 While
the flooding overlay is not currently referred to in the permitted activity
criteria for dwellings in the Rural Zone, the risk of flooding in these
townships will need to be considered as part of the variation, as several of
the identified townships are currently covered by the flooding hazard overlay
in the Proposed District Plan Maps.
17 For
some of the settlements, such as Orepuki, potential for future coastal
movement, and the proximity of development to the coast is another important
matter to be considered. There is the potential for further coastal
movement inland to adversely affect residential development and dwellings
approved under the Building Act are expected to have a 50 year durability.
A Coastal Hazard Line is shown on the Proposed District Plan maps and
needs to be considered for those sections close to the coast.
Rural Activities
18 The
Orepuki CDA, at its meeting on 12 May 2015, raised the matter of how dwellings
would be affected by surrounding rural activities. For most of the rural
type activities, there are already setbacks within the permitted activity rules
which would minimise the effect of those activities on the township. For
example, intensive farm buildings, gravel extraction and cleanfills have
setbacks from dwellings or property boundaries that would prevent them from
locating within or near to the proposed township boundaries without requiring
consent.
19 At
the informal meeting with members of the Athol CDA Subcommittee, it was
discussed that it may wish to continue grazing animals within the township
boundaries. As the Rural Settlement Area would only be an overlay of
the Rural Zone, the permitted activity for farming would still apply.
Factors to Consider
Legal
and Statutory Requirements
20 Any
changes to the District Plan will be required to follow the variation process
as outlined in the RMA 1991. This process includes assessing the benefits
and costs of the changes through a Section 32 Report, public notification of
the changes, submissions and hearings, with the final decisions of the Council
being subject to appeal.
Community
Views
21 Staff
have met with members of the Orepuki CDA Subcommittee, and attended its meeting
on 12 May 2015 to discuss the issues that would need to be considered as part
of any plan change.
22 Staff
also met with some members of the Athol CDA Subcommittee in August 2013 to
discuss their interest in progressing a plan change again. Discussions at
that meeting indicated there was interest in creating a rural village type
zoning but that there would need to be adequate opportunity for community
engagement and input. As there was no urgency in progressing this, the
work was put on hold while the Proposed District Plan work was progressed.
23 Should
a variation be progressed, staff would continue to seek input from CDA members
of the relevant townships as any changes are developed. The views of the
community would be sought through key stakeholder consultation prior to any
variation being notified, and they would again have an opportunity to provide
feedback through the formal process under the RMA.
Costs
and Funding
24 There
are costs associated with undertaking a variation, including staff time,
consultation costs, printing/distribution of documents, public notices, and
hearings. There may also be the need to engage external experts such as a
landscape architect to review the rules in relation to the Visual Amenity
Landscape in some of the townships, and an environmental consultant to look at
wastewater requirements for those towns that have not yet been
investigated. The work would be undertaken within current District Plan
budgets.
Policy
Implications
25 As
outlined in the introduction of this report, the decisions on the Proposed
District Plan identified further work to be undertaken in relation to rural
settlements. It was also identified in the Resource Management Activity
Profile for the Long Term Plan 2015-2025 that the regulatory framework for
rural townships was an area likely to need to be addressed in the next few
years.
26 It
is also likely that any amendments to the District Plan would result in less
restrictive plan rules for these areas than there are at present.
Analysis
Options Considered
27 With
regard to the establishment of rural settlements, Council has the following
options:
· Option
1: Retain the current plan approach, with the Rural Zone provisions
continuing to apply across all rural settlements.
· Option
2: Proceed with a variation to provide for Orepuki only as a Rural
Settlement Area and develop specific rules for that area. This option
does not preclude Council from deciding to progress plan changes in the future
for other rural townships.
· Option
3: Proceed with a variation to establish Rural Settlement Areas with associated
rules, for two or more of the following townships: Orepuki, Athol, Dipton,
Drummond, Fortrose, Garston, Gorge Road, Limehills/Centre Bush, Thornbury,
Waikawa, Woodlands and Curio Bay.
Analysis of Options
Option
1 – Retain the Status Quo
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
· No
further work or costs would be incurred with regard to any variation.
|
· Consent
would be required for every dwelling in Orepuki, and several other similar
townships resulting in unnecessary costs and delays.
· Development
would be ad-hoc with no incentive for development to be clustered around
existing settlements.
|
Option
2 – Proceed with a variation for Orepuki
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
· A
variation can be prepared specifically addressing matters relevant to
Orepuki.
· Less
restrictive rules making some types of development easier.
· This
would facilitate consolidation and growth of the Orepuki township around its
existing core, rather than the potential for residential development to occur
in more isolated locations further from the town as has occurred in the
recent past.
|
· Other
similar townships in the District, such as Athol etc will continue to require
resource consent.
· There
may be a perception of inequity amongst townships to progress such a change
only in one township.
|
Option
3 – Proceed with a variation for two or more of the Rural townships
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
· A
proactive and consistent approach across the District would be
implemented.
· Costs
and resources, including staff time would be minimised by only going through
the process once, rather than for each township.
|
· The
process may be delayed somewhat, as further background work is undertaken for
those townships that have not previously been investigated.
|
Assessment of Significance
28 It
is not considered that these potential changes to the Proposed District Plan
are significant in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy
because they are looking to address additional restrictions that have already
been imposed through the Proposed District Plan. The proposed changes
will also be subject to a public consultation process under the RMA, giving the
communities and anyone else who wishes to express a view the opportunities to
have their say and affect the overall outcome of the variation.
Recommended Option
29 It
is recommended Council proceed with Option 2, a variation to address
implementation issues, and provide for Rural Settlement Areas with associated
rules for Orepuki. Following a variation for the Orepuki township, Council
could consider extending those Rural Settlement rules to any other townships in
the District where there was a demand for such changes.
Next Steps
30 If
the Resource Management Committee recommends the variation be progressed, this
recommendation will be taken to Council for approval to start the variation
process.
31 If
Council approves of a variation being undertaken the process would be as
follows:
· Develop
a draft variation in consultation with the Orepuki CDA Subcommittee (and other
relevant CDAs or CBs) and undertake the Section 32 cost benefit analysis
· Report
to Resource Management Committee with the draft variation and Section 32
report, seeking a recommendation to Council to approve the variation for public
notification in accordance with the RMA
· Report
to Council seeking approval to notify the variation in accordance with the
RMA
· Publicly
notify the variation for submissions
· Summarise
submissions received
· Publicly
notify the Summary of Submissions, for further submissions
· Staff
prepare Section 42 recommending reports for the hearings
· Hearings
· Hearing
panel to make and release decisions, which are then subject to appeal.
Attachments
a Rural
Settlement Maps View
