Agenda of Council Meeting

14 May 2020

8.2 Submissions and recommendations for proposed Variations 4 (A-H) to the Kapiti Coast District Council Proposed District Plan – Miscellaneous Changes & Corrections

Author: Laura Willoughby, Senior Policy Planner

Authoriser: Angela Bell, Acting Group Manager Regulatory Services

Purpose of Report

1 This report seeks the Council’s approval of:

a) the decision process for Variations 4 (A-H) to the Kāpiti Coast Proposed District Plan 2012 - Appeals Version 2018 (PDP), and;

b) the recommended changes to Variation 4F in response to the one submission received and approve all other Variations as notified.

Background

2 The PDP was publicly notified in 2012. Decisions on submissions were released in November 2017. Experience in the implementation of the PDP since then has highlighted a number of interpretation issues and unintended consequences arising for some definitions, policies, rules and standards. To address these matters and ensure that the PDP is efficient and effective, Council notified Proposed Variations 4 (A-H) on 23 October 2019 with final submissions periods closing on 19 December 2019.

3 Variations 4 (A-H) proposed the following changes to the PDP:

3.1 Variation 4A - Amends three definitions within Chapter 1, Section 1.4:

3.1.1 Household Unit – amended to enable residents to install a second kitchen in houses to operate a home occupation, such as a catering business, without being identified as a new second household unit.

3.1.2 Ancillary – amended to no longer require that an ancillary activity is allied in characteristics, nature or type to the primary activity carried out on a site. For example, the office component to an industrial activity is ancillary to the activity, but is not allied in characteristic, nature or type. The proposed amendments to this definition has taken guidance from the National Planning Standards 2019.

3.1.3 Kitchen – removal of the wording “or any other cooking appliance” as this has complicated enforcement of unauthorised additional dwellings due to wide interpretation issues. In addition, the note which lists electrical appliances which are not included as cooking appliances under the definition is not an exhaustive list, resulting in uncertainty for customers and the Council’s compliance team. The proposed amendments will simplify the definition and provide certainty.

3.2 Variation 4B - Amends Policy 3.14 to broaden the policy to address the effects of earthworks on natural landforms, amenity values and rural character. The current policy has a much narrower focus on the effects of earthworks on outstanding natural features and landforms only.

3.3 Variation 4C - Amends Rule 5A.1.6.11 yard setback standard for non-residential activities in the Living Zones to clarify that these do not apply to home occupations. Currently, a home occupation business which uses a room in an existing dwelling as an office would need to apply for resource consent if the dwelling is located within 4 metres from a yard. The typical yard setback requirements in residential areas for a front lot is 3 metres one side and 1.5 metres on the other side. Therefore, dwellings positioned closer than 4 metres from a boundary are very common in the district’s residential areas. This was not the intention for home occupations, which the PDP provides for as a permitted activity and the variation seeks to clarify this.

3.4 Variation 4D - Amends the rules in Chapter 6 which manage the interface between the Living Zones and Working Zones to simplify and remove duplication from the standards. The wording of the current rule is broad and requires that multiple additional building standards apply to an industrial building in the Industrial/Service Zone that adjoin the Living Zone. The proposed changes clarify that the interface between the two zones can be appropriately managed through two key bulk and location standards, which are a minimum 4 metre yard setbacks and a height in relation to boundary control.

3.5 Variation 4E – Amends Rural Zone subdivision standard to limit number of lots gaining access via a right of way and clarifies Shared Car Parking requirements in the PDP, and makes terminology consistent for the transport network hierarchy.

3.5.1 Amends Rural Zone subdivision standard 7A.3.2.1 to limit the number of lots which can gain access to a road via a right of way. Rights of way are not required to be formed to the same widths and specifications as legal road, and are consequently typically narrower than a road. Therefore, for safety reasons they are generally suitable for low numbers of users. Currently the PDP subdivision rules for the rural zone do not specify how many lots may have access off a right of way. This change limits the maximum number of lots gaining access via a right of way to 6 lots within the Rural Zone.

3.5.2 Amends Rule 11P.2.1.1 Shared Car Parking requirements to better enable shared car parking by different activities. The wording of the current rule means even if different activities have enough parking in the shared area, resource consent is still required simply because the parking area is shared by more than one activity.

3.5.3 Amends Rule 11E.1.3 – Standard 12 to make the terminology consistent with the transport network hierarchy. Currently the term ‘local road’ causes uncertainty in the implementation of this rule as it is not entirely consistent with the terminology used in the PDP’s Transport Network Hierarchy and maps, which use the term ‘neighbourhood access route’. The Council’s Traffic team has requested that the rule wording be improved to provide clarity and consistency by including “neighbourhood access routes” within the residential zones areas to be consistent with the PDP’s Transport Network Hierarchy and maps.

3.6 Variation 4F - Amends Chapter 12 standards for temporary events in Chapter 12 and inserts a new definition for regular market and permitted activity provisions. This variation proposes to make temporary events and ‘regular markets’ on Council-owned sites a permitted activity under the PDP, however approval would still be required from the Council under the Council’s existing Trading in Public Places Policy (TPPP), and Trading in Public Places Bylaw. The PDP would continue to manage temporary events and ‘regular markets’ on private land and on other public land under the ownership of other public bodies e.g. GWRC, DOC. Amendments to the timeframe for submitting an event management form, and the vehicle movement standard will improve the current temporary event approval and management process for event organisers. The Council is unable to manage temporary events and ‘regular markets’ under the TPPP on land not owned and managed by the Council as the TPPP only applies to Council-owned and managed sites. Therefore, the actual and potential adverse effects of temporary events (such as noise, traffic generation, amenity effects) on other sites must still be managed under the PDP.

3.7 Variation 4G - Amends Rule 11P.1.2 parking requirements for shared residential accommodation such as supported living and boarding houses. The PDP does not currently include car parking standards for ‘Shared and Group Accommodation’ or ‘Boarding Houses’, and ‘Supported Living Accommodation’ appears in two conflicting rules. This results in the risk of the under-provision of parking for these types of accommodation. NZ Transport Agency guidelines suggest that shared accommodation of this kind is likely to require a higher number of on-site car parks than typical residential household units, but fewer parks than 1 per bed. Changes are therefore proposed to add a standard that addresses car parking requirements for ‘Shared and Group Accommodation’ and ’Boarding Houses’ (a minimum of 1 carpark per 2 beds in any boarding house, shared and group accommodation), and to clarify for ‘Supported Living Accommodation’ (a minimum of 1 carpark per 4 beds and 1 carpark per 2 staff members on the site).

3.8 Variation 4H - Amends Rural Zone Rule 7A.5.7 to clarify the activity status of general retail activities in the Rural Zone. The PDP rules require a non-complying activity consent for commercial activities in the Rural Zones. The intention had been to continue the non-complying activity status for general retailing under the operative District Plan. However, as an unintended consequence of an amended PDP definition of commercial activities, the non-complying activity rule does not apply to general retail activities and they could, by default, be permitted activities if they met certain standards. Due to the potential impact of this omission, Variation 4H was given immediate legal effect from the date of notification (23^rd October 2019) as a result of the Environment Court decision (Decision Number [2019] NZEnvC 169). The reason for this was to protect the integrity of the Regional Policy Statement and PDP objectives and policies that emphasise the importance of ensuring retail development is consolidated within identified urban centres.

variations (A-E) and (G-H): approve as notified

4 No submissions were received on Variations (A-E) and (G-H). As a result, and in accordance with RMA Schedule 1, Clause 8C, no hearing was held for Variations 4 (A-E) and (G-H).

5 The Variations have been assessed and evaluated in the attached report to be the most efficient and effective in achieving the purpose of the RMA, the relevant objectives of the PDP and other relevant statutory documents. We are therefore recommending Council approves these variations as notified, in accordance with Clause 10 of Schedule 1 of the RMA. If Council does not approve these variations, it must instead agree to withdraw the amendments.

6 The Rules in these variations have been treated as operative since 19 December 2019 (when all submission periods had closed), as required by Section 86F(1)(a) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). The previous versions of the affected Rules in the PDP have been treated as inoperative since this date.

variation 4F: proposed amendment following submission

7 One submission was received on Variation 4F (temporary events amendments) from Sean Mallon, Group Manager of Infrastructure Services Group at Kāpiti Coast District Council. The submission related to improving the clarity and the management of traffic impacts for temporary events. A summary of submissions was notified on 4 December 2019. There were no further submissions received.

8 A hearing has not been held for Variation 4F as the submitter does not wish to be heard on their submission. Pursuant to Clause 8C of Schedule 1 of the RMA, Council can consider and decide on Variation 4F without the need for an RMA hearing to be held.

Clause 8C of Schedule 1 of the RMA - Hearing not needed

Where submissions are made but no person indicates they wish to be heard, or the request to be heard is withdrawn, the local authority shall consider the submissions along with the other relevant matters, but shall not be required to hold a hearing.

9 We recommend Council agrees to consider and decide on Variation 4F (temporary events provisions) without the need for a hearing, given that the only submitter does not wish to be heard.

variation 4f: Issues and Options

Issues

10 The one submission received for Variation 4F (temporary events) related to transport effects. The submission has been assessed and recommendations have been made in the attached report in Appendix 1, along with an evaluation of the resulting changes. The report recommends that the submission is accepted in part, resulting in two recommended changes to one of the provisions in Variation 4F.

11 One recommended change resulting from the submission is to improve clarity and increase the limits for vehicle movements to enable more temporary activities on private sites to operate as a permitted activity. The Council’s Infrastructure Group have confirmed that these higher vehicle movement limits can be safely accommodated within the existing legal road network.

12 The second recommended change, also raised in the submission, is to add clarifying information to the temporary events standards in the plan to convert ‘vehicle movements’ to the ‘number of people’ attending an event in order to improve understanding for plan users.

13 As a result of the submission received on Variation 4F, Rule 12B.1.1 - permitted activity standard 10 of the PDP, is recommended to change as follows (underline indicates additional text, ~~strikethrough~~ indicates deleted text):

10. Traffic expected to be generated by the temporary event must not exceed ~~of 50~~ 150 vehicle movements in any one hour or ~~800~~ 1,200 vehicle movements per day, whichever is greater.

Note: For the purpose of estimating vehicle movements under this standard, these vehicle movement thresholds equate to up to 450 people attending the event in any hour or 3,600 people attending per day, whichever is greater, based on an assumption of 1 car per 6 people.

14 With regard to the assumption within the proposed note on 1 car per 6 people, this figure includes an assumption that some people will arrive by means other than vehicle, such as walking and public transport.

15 The submission also sought further changes to amend car parking standards for some temporary events and to require traffic management plans for all events on private land. These issues were found to have some merit in terms of traffic effects, but were found to be out of the scope of Variation 4F in the form that it was notified. Legal advice has confirmed that additional changes to car parking standards and traffic management plans would not be within scope of Variation 4F. The risk is that members of the public would be denied an opportunity to comment on changes to parking standards and traffic management plans as they did not form part of proposed Variation 4F when it was notified by the Council.

16 The Variations have been assessed and evaluated in the attached report to be the most efficient and effective in achieving the purpose of the RMA, the relevant objectives of the PDP and other relevant statutory documents. This is supported by the Officer’s assessment and evaluation provided in the attached report.

17 If Council agrees to decide on Variation 4F without a hearing, officers recommend they accept the submission received in part and amend the provisions of proposed Variation 4F (temporary event provisions) as proposed above. They may also decide to seek further amendments to Variation 4F.

Considerations

Policy considerations

18 Variations 4 (A-H) are relevant to giving effect to the policies within the Kāpiti Coast Proposed District Plan, however the recommended amendments to the temporary event provisions as notified under Variation 4F will mean some events would be managed under the Council’s Trading in Public Places Bylaw 2017, and the Trading in Public Places Policy 2017 rather than under the district plan.

19 Currently, the district plan provisions override this strategy and policy, however Variation 4F will change this situation for events being carried out on land or buildings owned or managed by the Kāpiti Coast District Council. Such events would no longer be subject to the district plan rules (and the potential need for resource consent), and instead would need to follow the authorisation and management processes approved by the Council under the 2017 bylaw and policy.

Legal considerations

20 Variations 4 (A-H) have been prepared in accordance with Schedule 1 of the RMA and the attached report considers Section 42A of the RMA, the submission received and the requirements of Section 32 and 32AA of the Act as well as all other relevant statutory matters.

Financial considerations

21 Direct financial costs to the Council are reduced when hearings (which involves the time and costs of Commissioners, venue, staff and expert consultants) are not required to be held to approve variations to proposed district plans under the RMA.

22 Variations 4 (A-H) have been evaluated in terms of economic effects, economic growth & employment impacts along with other factors such as environmental effects, social effects cultural effects, efficiency and effectiveness. The evaluation of each provision is contained within the section 32 contained within Appendix 1.3 and section 32AA evaluation in Appendix 1. The evaluations conclude that the amendments proposed by Variations 4(A-H) are the most appropriate way to achieve the PDP objectives, by comparison with the reasonably practicable alternative approaches.

Tāngata whenua considerations

23 A copy of draft Variations 4 (A-H) was sent to each of the mana whenua iwi authorities on 10 June 2019. No response was received. Mana whenua iwi authorities were also advised of the proposed Variations 4 (A-H) at the time of notification (23rd October 2019) and no submissions have been received in response.

24 The provisions of proposed Variations 4 (A-H) have been considered alongside the following documents:

24.1 Whakarongotai o te moana o te wai Kaitiakitanga Plan - This Plan identifies the key kaupapa, huanga and tikanga values, objectives and policies of Te Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai to guide kaitiakitanga. The document is internally focused, in order to support the kaitiaki practice of the iwi, but also to inform other agencies. The provisions of proposed Variations 4 (A-H) do not alter any of the provisions of Chapter 2 or 2A of the PDP as they relate to kaitiakitanga. The proposed amendment to Policy 3.14 (addressing the effects of earthworks on natural landforms) potentially enhances the policy framework enabling kaitiakitanga. None of the provisions of proposed Variations 4 (A-H) conflicts with any of the objectives, tikanga or five-year priorities set out in Whakarongotai o te moana o te wai.

24.2 Proposed Ngāti Raukawa Ōtaki River and Catchment Iwi Management Plan 2000 – The Proposed Plan establishes a vision for Ngāti Raukawa exercise of Kaitiakitanga, in respect of the Otaki River and its catchments, and provides policy to guide the fulfilment of that vision. The policy is aimed at providing for the ongoing development of a comprehensive framework from which Ngāti Raukawa can engage in management of the Otaki River and its resources to ensure fulfilment of its Kaitiakitanga responsibilities. Despite the status of the plan being ‘proposed’, the Council was advised by Te Runanga O Raukawa in a letter dated 1 June 2001 that the plan was made operational by the Runanga on 10 April 2001. No inconsistencies between proposed Variations 4(A-H) and the proposed Management Plan were identified.

24.3 Ngā Korero Kaupapa mo Te Taiao - The document outlines the vision, intent and objectives for compliance with tikanga standards for protection and management of the environment as determined by Te Runanga O Ati Awa ki Whakarongotai Inc with respect to disposal and treatment of effluent, stormwater runoff, heritage protection and management, and representation. The content of Variations 4(A-H) do not address any of the above matters.

24.4 Te Haerenga Whakamua - Input from tangata whenua was an important part of developing the PDP, with 23 meetings held from December 2010 through October 2012 between Council staff and a Tangata Whenua working party nominated by Te Whakaminenga o Kāpiti. The Tāngata Whenua Working Party was established in 2010 as a mechanism for iwi to participate in the review of the District Plan and to represent the District’s three iwi (Te Āti Awa ki Whakarongotai, Ngāti Raukawa ki te Tonga and Ngāti Toa Rangatira). The mandate for the working party was to review all aspects of the District Plan on behalf of Te Whakaminenga o Kāpiti and recommend the direction for iwi policy and Māori world view within the PDP process. This process resulted in the document Te Haerenga Whakamua being approved by Te Whakaminenga o Kāpiti in March 2012 and endorsed by Council on 27 September 2012. None of the proposed Variations 4 (A-H) provisions are identified as being inconsistent with Te Haerenga Whakamua.

25 The provisions of proposed Variations 4 (A-H) do not alter any of the existing provisions of Chapter 2 of the PDP (Objectives) or 2A (District-wide Policies) as they relate to kaitiakitanga. The proposed amendment to Policy 3.14 in Variation 4B (addressing the effects of earthworks on natural landforms) potentially enhances the policy framework enabling kaitiakitanga.

Strategic considerations

26 The Kāpiti Coast District’s Long Term Plan 2018-38 sets out ‘A positive response to our distinct district identity’ as one of the relevant 10 year outcomes sought for the Kāpiti Coast district. Variation 4F seeks to simplify and better enable temporary events to occur within the Kāpiti Coast district, Variation 4B seeks to better manage the effects of earthworks on natural landforms, amenity values and rural character and Variation 4G sees to clarify controls on general retail activities in the Rural Zone. These Variations, in particular, help to contribute to the identity of the Kāpiti Coast district.

Significance and Engagement

Significance and engagement policy

27 Consultation, submissions or other engagement processes required under the Resource Management Act 1991 have their own special rules and are excluded from the Significance and Engagement policy.

28 Officers will notify the Council’s decision in accordance with Clauses 10 and 11 of Schedule 1 of the RMA 1991 (officers have delegations to do this).

29 There is also a requirement to allow for a 30 working day appeal period on the Council’s decision in accordance with Clause 14 of Schedule 1 of the RMA. Only the single submitter has the ability to lodge an appeal with the Environment Court.

Recommendations

30 Determine that Variation 4F is to be considered and decided without a hearing pursuant to Clause 8C of Schedule 1;

31 Adopt the recommendations in the section 42A report to accept the submission in part and to amend the provisions of Variation 4F as recommended, and approve all other Variations as notified in accordance with Clause 10 of Schedule 1;

32 Adopt the section 32AA evaluation which covers the amendment to Variation 4F.

Appendices

1. Appendix 1 - Section 42A Report and 32AA Evaluation for Variations 4 (A-H) - Miscellaneous Changes and Corrections ⇩

2. Appendix 1.1 - Variations 4 (A-H), as notified (23rd October 2019) ⇩

3. Appendix 1.2 - Submission received from Sean Mallon, Group Manager Infrastructure Services, Kapiti Coast District Council and summary of the submission ⇩

4. Appendix 1.3 - Section 32 Evaluation Report (September 2019) ⇩

Executive Summary:

1. This report advises on the status and decision process for the proposed Variations 4 (A-H) – Miscellaneous Changes and Corrections to the Proposed Kāpiti Coast District Plan 2012 (Appeals version 2018).

2. Variations 4 (A-H) proposed the following changes:

· Variation 4A - Amend three definitions: Household Unit, Ancillary, and Kitchen;

· Variation 4B - Amend Policy 3.14 to manage the effects of earthworks on natural landforms, amenity values and rural character;

· Variation 4C - Amend Rule 5A.1.6.11 yard setback standard for non-residential activities in the Living Zones to clarify that these do not apply to home occupations;

· Variation 4D - Amend the rules in Chapter 6 which manage the interface between the Living Zones and Working Zones to simplify and remove duplication from the standards;

· Variation 4E - Amend Rural Zone subdivision standard 7A.3.2.1 to limit the number of lots which can gain access to a road via a right of way; Amend Rule 11P.2.1.1 Shared Car Parking requirements; and Amend Rule 11E.1.3 – Standard 12 to make the terminology consistent with the transport network hierarchy;

· Variation 4F - Amend Chapter 12 standards for temporary events in Chapter 12; Insert a new definition for regular market and permitted activity provisions for these;

· Variation 4G - Amend Rule 11P.1.2 parking requirements for shared residential accommodation such as supported living and boarding houses.

· Variation 4H - Amend Rural Zone Rule 7A.5.7 to clarify the activity status of general retail activities in the Rural Zone. This Variation had immediate legal effect from the date of notification as a result of the Environment Court decision (Decision Number [2019] NZEnvC 169). The reason for this was to protect the integrity of the Regional Policy Statement and PDP objectives and policies that emphasise the importance of ensuring retail development is consolidated within identified urban centres.

3. The report also considers the submission received by Kāpiti Coast District Council (the Council) in relation to the relevant rules and standards as they apply to Variation 4F – Temporary Events.

4. One submission was received following notification and no further submissions were received on Variations 4 (A-H). The submission received sought amendments to Variation 4F Permitted Activity rules and standards in relation to traffic effects.

5. A hearing has not been held for Variations 4 (A-E) and (G-H) as no submissions were received. A hearing has not been held for Variation 4F as the submitter does not wish to be heard on their submission.

6. The submission sought to improve the way traffic impacts are considered under the proposed permitted activity standards for temporary events.

7. In response, some changes to the wording of Variation 4F permitted activity standard 10 for Temporary Events is recommended. These changes have been further evaluated under s32AA of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and will be efficient and effective in achieving the purpose of the RMA, the relevant objectives of this plan and other relevant statutory documents.

8. As no other submissions were received, Variations 4(A-E) and (G-H), are currently being treated as operative (as required by the RMA) and this report recommends that the Committee completes the plan making process and formally approve their inclusion into the Proposed Kāpiti Coast District Plan 2012 (Appeals version 2018).

Table of Contents

Executive Summary: 1

Interpretation. 4

Introduction. 5

1.1 Report Author 5

1.2 Purpose of this Report 5

Section 2: Statutory considerations. 7

2.1 The Operative Kāpiti Coast District Plan 1999. 7

2.2 The Proposed Kāpiti Coast District Plan 2012 (Appeals Version 2018) 7

2.3 Objectives, provisions and rules. 8

2.4 Statutory Considerations – Resource Management Act 1991. 8

2.5 New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 11

2.6 National Policy Statements. 12

2.7 National Environment Standards. 13

2.8 Regional Policy Statement 14

2.9 Management plans and strategies under any other Acts. 15

2.10 Council’s functions under the RMA.. 18

2.11 Consistency with adjacent territorial authorities. 19

2.12 Process - Hearing not needed. 19

Section 3: Consideration of Submission. 20

3.1 Report evaluation. 20

3.2 Variation 4F – Limit and measurement of traffic impacts. 20

3.2.1 Matters Raised by Submitter 20

3.2.2 Assessment 22

3.2.3 Recommendations. 23

3.3 Variation 4F – Parking for temporary events. 24

3.3.1 Matters Raised by Submitters. 24

3.3.2 Assessment 24

3.3.3 Recommendations. 25

3.4 Variation 4F – Transport Management Plan. 25

3.4.1 Matters Raised by Submitters. 25

3.4.2 Assessment 25

3.4.3 Recommendations. 26

3.5 Conclusion on the Variation provisions. 26

Section 4: S32AA Evaluation of changes. 27

Section 5: Overall Recommendation. 30

Section 6: Recommendations on Submission. 32

Appendices. 35

Interpretation

This report utilises a number of abbreivations for brevity’s sake as set out in the glossary below:

Abbreviation	Means…
“the Act”	Resource Management Act 1991
“the Council”	Kāpiti Coast District Council
“the operative Plan”	Operative Kāpiti Coast District Plan 1999
“the proposed Plan” or “PDP”	Proposed Kāpiti Coast District Plan 2012 (Appeals version 2018)
“GWRC”	Greater Wellington Regional Council
“NES”	National Environmental Standard
“NPS”	National Policy Statement
“RMA”	Resource Management Act 1991
“WRPS”	Wellington Regional Policy Statement 2013

Introduction

1.1 Report Author

1 My name is Laura Willoughby and I am employed by the Kāpiti Coast District Council as a Senior Policy Planner. I hold the qualification of Bachelor of Resource and Environmental Planning.

2 I am a full member of the New Zealand Planning Institute. I have 10 years experience in local government resource management planning and 10 years experience in central government land use/transportation planning. My main role at the Kāpiti Coast District Council is to prepare and process District Plan changes and variations.

3 This report includes my assessment and recommendations to accept or reject points made in submissions on the Proposed Variations 4 (A-H) to the Kāpiti Coast District Council Proposed District Plan – Miscellaneous Changes and Corrections. Ultimately, the final decision-making responsibility rests with the Strategy and Operations Committee.

1.2 Purpose of this Report

4 The primary purpose of the report is to assist the Council’s Strategy and Operations Committee in evaluating and deciding on the issues raised in the submission that has been made on Proposed Variations 4 (A-H) to the Kāpiti Coast District Council Proposed District Plan – Miscellaneous Changes and Corrections.

5 The components of Variations 4 (A-H) are as follows:

• Variation 4A - Chapter 1: Review of a number of defined Terms.

• Variation 4B – Chapter 3: Review of Earthworks Policies

• Variation 4C – Chapter 5: Changes to Living Zone

• Variation 4D – Chapter 6 Changes to the Working Zone

• Variation 4E – Changes to Traffic and Transportation related rules

• Variation 4F – Amendments to temporary event provisions.

• Variation 4G – Amendments to Rule 11P.1.2 parking requirements for Residential Activities.

• Variation 4H – Amend Rural Zone Rule 7A.5.7 to clarify the activity status of general retail activities in the Rural Zone.

6 This report has been prepared in accordance with Section 42A of the RMA to consider all submissions and further submissions received following the public notification of Variations 4 (A-H) and to make recommendations on those submissions. This report is also prepared to meet the requirements of Section 32AA with regard to undertaking a further evaluation for the recommended changes in response to the submission.

7 This report:

· Outlines the statutory provisions relevant to the Variation process

· Discusses the submission received following notification of the Variation

· Makes recommendations as to whether or not the submission should be accepted or rejected; and

· Concludes with a recommendation for changes to the Variation provisions based on the preceding discussion in the report.

8 A change to the wording of proposed Variation 4F (amendments to temporary events provisions) is recommended to take into account matters raised in the submission received. This is detailed in the recommendations section 5 of the report. A summary of all recommendations on the submission received is contained in Section 6 of this report.

Section 2: Statutory considerations

2.1 The Operative Kāpiti Coast District Plan 1999

9 Variations 4 (A-H) have been prepared to amend the provisions of the Proposed Kāpiti Coast District Plan 2012 (Appeals version 2018) only, therefore the Operative District Plan remains unchanged.

2.2 The Proposed Kāpiti Coast District Plan 2012 (Appeals Version 2018)

10 The Proposed District Plan was notified on 28 November 2012 and decisions were released on 22 November 2017. There were 18 appeals on the decisions and at the time of writing this report four of these appeals are yet to be resolved. None of the proposed amendments within Variations 4(A-H) relate to matters under appeal.

11 The purpose of proposed Variations 4 (A-H) is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the PDP rules in achieving the PDP’s objectives. Proposed Variations 4 (A-H) amend various rules and one policy of the Kāpiti Coast Proposed District Plan (PDP) to address interpretation difficulties and gaps that have been identified since public notification of the PDP.

12 Proposed Variations 4 (A-H) were notified on 23 October 2019 with submissions closing on 21 November 2019. There was one submission received and a summary of submissions was notified on 4 December 2019. There were no further submissions received.

13 Variation 4H (proposed amendments to Rule 7A.5.7 - retailing in the Rural Zone) had immediate legal effect from the date of notification (23 October 2019) following the Environment Court decision (Decision Number [2019] NZEnvC 169).

14 As no submissions were lodged on Variations (A-E) and (G-H), the rules in these Variations must be treated as operative from 19^th December 2019, when the submission period had closed (s.86F(1)(a) of the RMA). The previous provision versions of the affected Rules in the PDP must be inoperative.

15 Therefore, under the RMA, the wording of the Rules in Variations (A-E) and (G-H) have been deemed to be accepted and the rules are currently in use for District Planning purposes. The Committee now has the role of exercising its delegations to complete the plan making process and formally adopt these provisions into the Proposed District Plan.

2.3 Objectives, provisions and rules

16 The Variations do not include any new objectives, rather the provisions of the Variations are derived from the existing objectives in the proposed District Plan.

17 One amendment is made to policy in Variation 4B as there is currently little policy guidance for managing potential effects on all natural landforms, amenity values and rural character and it has become apparent that this is a substantive gap in the policy framework that has the potential to impede achievement of Objectives 2.9 and 2.11.

18 The other Variations relate to changes to rules and definitions within the PDP. An assessment of the appropriateness of the method of each provision and the actual and potential effects on the environment of the rules and definitions proposed within the Variations have been evaluated in the section 32 evaluation report. This evaluation report is attached in Appendix 1.3 of this report.

19 Further evaluation under s32AA of the Act has also been undertaken for a recommended change to Variation 4F that has arisen since the Variation was first notified and in response to submission. This evaluation is contained within section 4 of this report. The evaluation finds that alternative methods were less effective and/or efficient in the implementation of the objectives of the Plan and the purpose of the variation.

20 Proposed Variations 4 (A-H) are more appropriate than the status quo at achieving the Plan’s proposed objectives on the whole.

2.4 Statutory Considerations – Resource Management Act 1991

21 There are a number of key statutory documents which must be noted as part of considering Variations 4 (A-H).

22 The RMA sets out the statutory functions and duties for Councils and provides the framework for preparing and implementing changes to the District Plan. The process for preparing a plan change is set out in Schedule 1.

23 Part 2 of the Act sets out the purpose and principles of the Act, which underpin the exercise of Council’s functions, duties, and powers.

24 The purpose under section 5 of the RMA is to “…promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources”. In this context, sustainable management means:

Managing the use, development and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety while [emphasis added] –

(a) Sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and

(b) Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil and ecosystems; and

(c) Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.

25 In achieving this purpose, authorities need also to recognise and provide for the matters of national importance identified in s6, have particular regard to other matters referred to in s7 and take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi referred to in s8.

26 The following section 6, 7 and 8 matters are relevant to the proposed plan Variations 4 (A-H):

Section	Relevant Matter
6(a)	the preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment (including the coastal marine area), wetlands, and lakes and rivers and their margins, and the protection of them from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development
6(b)	the protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development:
7(b)	the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources
7(c)	the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values
7(f)	maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment
8	In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi).

27 The purpose of proposed Variations 4 (A-H) is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Proposed District Plan rules to achieve outcomes that are consistent with Part 2 of the RMA. The provisions have been developed in response to the matters in s.6(a), 6(b), 7(b), 7(c), and 7(f).

28 In response to Section 8 matters, the Council has a partnership approach with iwi for resource management matters. Te Whakaminenga o Kāpiti is one of the longest lasting partnerships between tāngata whenua and Local Government in New Zealand. The partners are the Kāpiti Coast District Council and the mana whenua (people with ‘authority over the land’) on the Kāpiti Coast: Te Āti Awa ki Whakarongotai, Ngāti Raukawa ki te Tonga, and Ngāti Toa Rangatira.

29 A copy of draft Variations 4 (A-H) was forwarded to each of the mana whenua iwi authorities on 10 June 2019. No response was received. Mana whenau iwi authorities were also advised of the proposed Variations (A-H) at the time of notification and no submission was received in response.

30 Under ss73 and 74 of the RMA the Council is required to have a district plan that is in accordance with its functions under s31 and Part 2 of the Act, in respect to Variations 4 (A-H) these specifically include:

· to achieve integrated management of the effects of the use, development or protection of land and associated natural and physical resources;

· to ensure that there is sufficient development capacity in respect of housing and business land to meet the expected demands of the city;

· the control of the effects of the use, development, or protection of land; including in respect of natural hazards, contaminated land and maintaining indigenous biodiversity.

31 Under ss73(4) and (5), the Council must amend a district plan to give effect to a regional policy statement within specified timeframes if:

(a) the statement contains a provision to which the plan does not give effect; and

(b) one of the following occurs:

(i) the statement is reviewed under section 79 and not changed or replaced; or

(ii) the statement is reviewed under section 79 and is changed or replaced and the change or replacement becomes operative; or

(iii) the statement is changed or varied and becomes operative.

32 Under s74(b)(i), when preparing or changing a plan, a territorial authority is required to have regard to “any management plans and strategies prepared under other Acts.”

33 This assessment against section 74(b)(i) requirements is carried out in Section 2.9 below.

34 Under s74(2A) the Council:

must take into account any relevant planning document recognised by an iwi authority and lodged with the territorial authority, to the extent that its content has a bearing on the resource management issues of a region.

35 An assessment against section 74(2A) requirements is carried out within section 2.9 below.

36 Section 75(3) of the RMA requires that district plans must give effect to –

(a) any national policy statement; and

(b) any New Zealand coastal policy statement; and

(c) any regional policy statement.

37 An assessment against section 75(3) requirements is carried out within sections 2.5 – 2.7 below.

38 Under s75(4), district plans must not be inconsistent with –

(b) a regional plan for any matter specified in section 30(1).

39 An assessment against section 75(4) requirements is carried out within section 2.8 below.

40 It is noted that a district plan is only one means for a council to undertake its functions under s31 of the RMA and to achieve the purpose of the RMA.

2.5 New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement

41 The purpose of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS) is to state objectives and policies in order to achieve the purpose of the RMA in relation to the protection and enhancement of the coastal environment of New Zealand. The NZCPS 2010 took effect on 3 December 2010.

42 The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) has relevance to Variations 4(A-H) as many of the changes apply to residential communities located within the coastal environment. The extent of the coastal environment in the District is extensive, including all the District’s main urban areas.

43 The NZCPS is most relevant to the proposed amendments to address Policy 3.14 Guidance for Earthworks Effects on Natural Landforms, Amenity Values and Rural Character. In particular, clarifying how the Proposed District Plan intends to manage the effects of earthworks on amenity values, rural character and on natural landforms that don’t qualify as s.6 RMA outstanding natural features or landscapes.

44 The proposed addition to Policy 3.14 will better give effect to the above objectives and policies of the NZCPS. Objective 2 of the NZCPS is not limited to s.6 RMA outstanding natural features and landscapes. Expanding the scope of Policy 3.14, to include other natural landforms, will better accord with NZCPS Objective 2 and NZCPS Policy 4. The area of the coastal environment in the District is extensive, and includes many remnant inland dune formations which are not identified as outstanding natural features or landscapes. Many of these remnant dunes are important characteristic landforms that contribute to the natural character of the coastal environment.

2.6 National Policy Statements

45 There are currently four national policy statements:

· National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity (2016);

· National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (as amended 2017);

· National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation (2011); and

· National Policy Statement on Electricity Transmission (2008).

46 The National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity (NPSUDC) is potentially relevant because the objectives of the NPSUDC apply to all plan making decisions affecting an urban environment. The NPS sets out the objectives for providing development capacity under the RMA. It seeks to ensure that urban environments:

· enable people and communities and future generations to provide for their social, economic, cultural and environmental wellbeing (OA1)

· have sufficient opportunities for the development of housing and which provide choices that will meet the needs of people and communities and future generations (OA2)

· develop and change in response to the changing needs of people and communities and future generations. (OA3)

· enable urban development which provides for the social, economic, cultural and environmental wellbeing of people and communities and future generations in the short, medium and long-term (OC1)

· Urban environments where land use, development, development infrastructure and other infrastructure are integrated with each other (OD1)

· Coordinated and aligned planning decisions within and across local authority boundaries (OD2)

47 The NPSUDC sets out the following relevant policies for providing development capacity under the RMA.

· PA3: When making planning decisions that affect the way and the rate at which development capacity is provided, decision-makers shall provide for the social, economic, cultural and environmental wellbeing of people and communities and future generations, whilst having particular regard to:

a. Providing for choices that will meet the needs of people and communities and future generations for a range of dwelling types and locations, working environments and places to locate businesses;

b. Promoting the efficient use of urban land and development infrastructure and other infrastructure; and

c. Limiting as much as possible adverse impacts on the competitive operation of land and development markets.

• PA4: When considering the effects of urban development, decision-makers shall take into account:

a. The benefits that urban development will provide with respect to the ability for people and communities and future generations to provide for their social, economic, cultural and environmental wellbeing; and

b. The benefits and costs of urban development at a national, inter-regional, regional and district scale, as well as local effects.

48 Proposed Variations 4 (A-H) make no changes to the PDP provisions that influence the supply of land for urban development. Therefore, proposed Variations 4 (A-H) do not cause the PDP to be inconsistent with the NPSUDC in this respect. The proposed Variation 4D amendments to the permitted activity standards for buildings in the Working Zones have the potential to positively affect business development capacity by making the construction of buildings more viable, and this is consistent with the NPSUDC objectives and policies.

49 There are no other NPS relevant to Proposed Variations 4 (A-H).

50 The National Planning Standards (gazetted in April 2019) have effect but the Council has seven years to give effect to the requirements of the Standards and is not required to comply with the Standards in the interim. Although opportunities to give effect to any relevant parts of the NPS have been considered under Variations 4(A-H), giving full effect to the NPS will be addressed separately by a future Plan Change(s).

2.7 National Environment Standards

51 There are six National Environmental Standards currently in force:

a. National Environmental Standards for Air Quality (2004);

b. National Environmental Standard for Sources of Drinking Water (2007);

c. National Environmental Standard for Telecommunication Facilities (2016);

d. National Environmental Standard for Electricity Transmission Activities (2009);

e. National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health (2011); and

f. National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry (2018).

52 None of the provisions of proposed Variations 4 (A-H) conflicts with these National Environment Standards.

2.8 Regional Policy Statement

53 Section 75(3)(c) the district plan must give effect to the Regional Policy Statement for the Wellington region (WRPS). The WRPS was made operative on 24 April 2013.

54 The WRPS provides an overview of the resource management issues in the Wellington region, and the ways in which integrated management of the region’s natural and physical resources will be achieved.

55 The WRPS has the following objectives and policies relevant to this Proposed Variation. The most relevant are:

· Objective 22 which identifies a compact, well designed and sustainable regional form that has an integrated, safe and responsive transport network and in particular clauses:

(b) an increased range and diversity of activities in and around the regionally significant centres to maintain vibrancy and vitality;

(h) integrated public open spaces; and

(i) Integrated land use and transportation.

· Policy 30: Maintaining and enhancing the viability and vibrancy of regionally significant centres – district plans

· Policy 56: Managing development in rural areas – consideration.

· Policy 57: Integrating land use and transportation - consideration.

· Policy 58: Co-ordinating land use with development and operation of infrastructure – consideration.

· Objective 23 which identifies that the region’s iwi authorities and local authorities work together under Treaty partner principles for the sustainable management of the region’s environment for the benefit and wellbeing of the regional community, both now and in the future.

· Policy 48: particular regard shall be given to: (a) the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi; and (b) Waitangi Tribunal reports and settlement decisions relating to the Wellington region.

56 These objectives and policies were considered in preparing Variations 4 (A-H), in addition these policies have been considered in relation to the matters raised in the submission received.

57 Proposed Variations 4 (A-H) include a number of minor changes which are not significant in terms of the regional perspective of the WRPS. However, the amendments proposed by Variation 4H are potentially affected by, and give effect to, some provisions of the WRPS.

58 Variation 4H seeks amendment to Rural Zone Rule 7A.5.7 to specify that retailing, that is not ancillary to primary production activities, is a non-complying activity.

59 This amendment gives effect to RPS Objective 22 and Policies 30 and 56 by ensuring retail activities (including large format retail) do not proliferate in rural areas, resulting in the loss of vitality and viability of the Paraparaumu Town Centre, which is identified as one of the Sub-Regional Centres of importance under Objective 22.

2.9 Management plans and strategies under any other Acts

60 Section 74 of the RMA requires the Council to have regard to management plans and strategies prepared under other Acts when preparing or changing its district plan.

Council Strategies

61 The Kapiti Coast District Council has in place the following potentially relevant strategies prepared under other legislation:

62 Coastal Strategy (2006) - This strategy is a guiding document which aims to ensure the community’s vision to restore and enhance the wild and natural feel of the coast is achieved. The strategy focuses on the coastal margins, and aims to set out a framework for managed change over a 20-year period.

63 Community Facilities Strategy (2017) - The purpose this strategy is to plan for the current and future needs of the community for community facilities. The strategy also outlines a decision-making process to determine how the Council can consider future requests for facilities support.

64 Development Management Strategy (2007) - This strategy sets out Kāpiti Coast District Council’s strategy for the management of development and settlement patterns on the Kāpiti Coast.

65 Economic Development Strategy 2015-18 - This strategy provides a roadmap for Council, business and the community to continue to foster a thriving economy in the District. It outlines how Council and businesses can work together to harness local knowledge, skills and resources, while setting goals to help make the best decisions.

66 Open Space Strategy (2012) - This strategy sets up the vision for the provision and management of open space in the Kāpiti Coast District for the next 20-50 years.

67 Sustainable Transport Strategy (2008) - This strategy takes a long term and realistic view of the future options and opportunities and casts that in the light of the impacts of peak oil, climate change and national and regional transport initiatives. The strategy is concerned with reshaping the local transport system so that it has the characteristics of a sustainable system

and dealing with key problems which are a barrier to sustainable outcomes.

68 The most relevant of these strategies is the Open Space Strategy, which identifies open spaces as important community assets for providing venues for local, regional and national events, which provide economic and social benefits to the community. The approach proposed by Variation 4F for temporary events and regular markets is consistent with the intentions of the Open Space Strategy. The amendments provide for events and regular community markets on Council-owned sites (including open spaces).

Other Council Plans

69 The following plans, prepared under other legislation, are also potentially relevant:

70 Long Term Plan 2018-38 - The long term plan 2018-38 is a blueprint for the future of our district and shows how council intends to contribute to achieving our vision of a thriving environment, vibrant economy and strong communities in Kāpiti.

71 The Kāpiti Coast District’s Long Term Plan 2018-38 sets out ‘A positive response to our distinct district identity’ as one of the relevant 10 year outcomes sought for the Kāpiti Coast district. Variation 4F seeks to simplify and better enable temporary events to occur within the Kāpiti Coast district, Variation 4B seeks to better manage the effects of earthworks on natural landforms, amenity values and rural character and Variation G sees to clarify controls on general retail activities in the Rural Zone. These Variations, in particular, help to contribute to the identity of the Kāpiti Coast district.

72 Reserve Management Plans - Reserve Management plans contain the overall vision for the reserves and include policies that help shape the use, management and development of our parks and reserves in Kāpiti. The Council has reserve management plans in place for nineteen reserves.

Reserve management plans will be relevant to the proposed non-RMA method for managing temporary events and ‘regular markets’ within Council reserves, and will apply in addition to the proposed PDP rules.

Council Policies and Bylaws

73 The Kapiti Coast District Council has the following other policies and bylaws which are relevant to Variation 4F:

· Public Places Bylaw 2017;

· Trading in Public Places Policy 2017; and

· Traffic Bylaw 2010.

74 All of the above bylaws are highly relevant to the amendments proposed by Variation 4F to the provisions for temporary events and regular community markets.

75 The Public Places Bylaw and Trading in Public Places Policy provide an authorisation process for temporary events and ‘regular markets’ on Council-owned land. This authorisation process sits outside of the RMA, and therefore offers an established alternative approach to managing many events and markets in the District.

76 The Traffic Bylaw sets the requirements for parking and control of vehicular traffic on any road, public carpark, reserve or other public place owned by the Kapiti Coast District Council. The bylaw is therefore of importance to the proposed changes to provisions for temporary events and ‘regular markets’ where carried out on public places owned by the Council, or places under the control and management of the Council.

Planning Documents Recognised by Iwi Authorities

77 There are four documents recognised by iwi authorities in the Kapiti Coast District. These comprise:

· Ngāti Raukawa Ōtaki River and Catchment Iwi Management Plan 2000;

· Nga Korero Kaupapa mo Te Taiao: Policy Statement Manual for Kapakapanui: Te Runanga O Ati Awa ki Whakarongotai Inc;

· Te Haerenga Whakamua – A Review of the District Plan Provisions for Māori: A Vision to the Future for the Kāpiti Coast District Council District Plan Review 2009-12 – 2012; and

· Whakarongotai o te moana o te wai’ Kaitiakitanga Plan for Te Atiawa ki Whakarongotai (2019).

78 As Proposed Variations 4 (A-H) apply to the entire district, all of these documents are considered below:

79 Proposed Ngāti Raukawa Ōtaki River and Catchment Iwi Management Plan 2000 – The Proposed Plan establishes a vision for Ngati Raukawa exercise of Kaitiakitanga, in respect of the Otaki River and its catchments, and provides policy to guide the fulfilment of that vision. The policy is aimed at providing for the ongoing development of a comprehensive framework from which Ngati Raukawa can engage in management of the Otaki River and its resources to ensure fulfilment of its Kaitiakitanga responsibilities. Despite the status of the plan being ‘proposed’, the Council was advised by Te Runanga O Raukawa in a letter dated 1 June 2001 that the plan was made operational by the Runanga on 10 April 2001. No inconsistencies between proposed Variations 4(A-H) and the proposed Management Plan were identified.

80 Nga Korero Kaupapa mo Te Taiao - The document outlines the vision, intent and objectives for compliance with tikanga standards for protection and management of the environment as determined by Te Runanga O Ati Awa ki Whakarongotai Inc with respect to disposal and treatment of effluent, stormwater runoff, heritage protection and management, and representation. The content of Variations 4(A-H) do not address any of the above matters.

81 Te Haerenga Whakamua - Input from tangata whenua was an important part of developing the PDP, with 23 meetings held from December 2010 through October 2012 between Council staff and a Tangata Whenua working party nominated by Te Whakaminenga o Kāpiti.

82 The Tāngata Whenua Working Party was established in 2010 as a mechanism for iwi to participate in the review of the District Plan and to represent the District’s three iwi (Te Āti Awa ki Whakarongotai, Ngāti Raukawa ki te Tonga and Ngāti Toa Rangatira). The mandate for the working party was to review all aspects of the District Plan on behalf of Te Whakaminenga o Kāpiti and recommend to this forum the direction for iwi policy and Māori world view within this process.

83 This process resulted in the document Te Haerenga Whakamua being approved by Te Whakaminenga o Kāpiti in March 2012 and endorsed by Council on 27 September 2012. None of the proposed Variations 4 (A-H) provisions are identified as being inconsistent with Te Haerenga Whakamua.

84 Whakarongotai o te moana o te wai Kaitiakitanga Plan - This Plan identifies the key kaupapa, huanga and tikanga values, objectives and policies of Te Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai to guide kaitiakitanga. The document is internally focused, in order to support the kaitiaki practice of the iwi, but also to inform other agencies. The provisions of proposed Variations 4 (A-H) do not alter any of the provisions of Chapter 2 or 2A of the PDP as they relate to kaitiakitanga. The proposed amendment to Policy 3.14 (addressing the effects of earthworks on natural landforms) potentially enhances the policy framework enabling kaitiakitanga.

85 None of the provisions of proposed Variations 4 (A-H) conflicts with any of the objectives, tikanga or five-year priorities set out in Whakarongotai o te moana o te wai.

2.10 Council’s functions under the RMA

86 Variations 4 (A-H) involves the establishment of methods to achieve integrated management of the effects of the use, development, or protection of land and associated natural and physical resources for the Kapiti Coast district. In addition, the Variations aims to control the actual or potential effects of the use, development, or protection of land.

87 Accordingly, the Variation is designed to accord with and assist the Council to carry out its s31 functions.

2.11 Consistency with adjacent territorial authorities

88 Variations 4 (A-H) all involve minor changes and corrections to the existing provisions of the Kāpiti Coast Proposed District Plan. The changes amend current provisions within the Plan to address implementation issues and improve efficiency and effectiveness of the Plan. There are no significant policy shifts or cross boundary issues that would require consistency with adjacent territorial authorities.

2.12 Process - Hearing not needed

89 No hearing is required in relation to Variations 4 A, B, C, D, E, G and H as no submissions were received, pursuant to Clause 8C of Schedule 1 of the RMA. As they are beyond challenge changes to rules under these variations must be treated as operative and previous rule inoperative in accordance with RMA section 86F.

90 One submission was received in relation to Variation 4F (temporary events provisions), from Sean Mallon, Group Manager of Infrastructure Services, Kāpiti Coast District Council on 20th November 2019.

91 The written submission indicated that the Council’s Infrastructure Services Group wished to be heard in support of their submission. A letter has since been received formally withdrawing this request to be heard (letter from Sean Mallon dated 16 January 2020).

92 Following the withdrawal of the submitter’s request to be heard, no hearing is necessary for Variation 4F, pursuant to Clause 8C of Schedule 1 of the RMA.

Section 3: Consideration of Submission

3.1 Report evaluation

93 The purpose of this evaluation is to inform the Strategy and Operations Committee of the relevant information and issues regarding Variations 4 (A-H), along with recommendations on the submission received.

94 The recommendations contained within this report relate to the written submission received and any information accompanying that submission. I emphasise that the conclusions and recommendations made in this report are my own, based on the information to hand at the time of writing this report, and are not binding upon the Strategy and Operations Committee. It should not therefore be assumed that the Committee will reach the same conclusion.

95 One submission was received in total. The submission sought amendments to Variation 4F to improve the way traffic impacts are considered under the proposed permitted activity standards for temporary events, including:

i. Issue 1 – increasing the limits for vehicle movements associated with temporary events and changing the measurement of vehicle movements within the permitted activity standards

ii. Issue 2 – greater clarity for on-site car parking requirements for different types of temporary events.

iii. Issue 3 – introducing a requirement for a Traffic Management Plan for all temporary events to be prepared and submitted to Council to cover specific traffic related matters in relation to traffic control of temporary events.

96 The following evaluation should be read in conjunction with the summary of the submission and the submission itself (Appendix 1.2).

97 For assessment purposes, a copy of Proposed Variations 4 (A-H), as notified, is included in Appendix 1.1 of this report.

3.2 Variation 4F – Limit and measurement of traffic impacts

3.2.1 Matters Raised by Submitter

98 Submission 1, Sean Mallon, Group Manager of Infrastructure Services, Kāpiti Coast District Council supported Variations 4F. A copy of the submission is included in Appendix 1.2 of this report.

99 The submitter sought specific amendments to the wording of Variation F temporary events, in particular to Rule 12B.1.1, permitted activity standard 10 relating to the measurement and limit of vehicle movements. The overall reason for the requested amendments were to further enable temporary events as a permitted activity, and improve clarity and consistency of these provisions.

100 The original issue with the Temporary Events standard 10 was identified within the s.32 report as being:

· Measurement of the per hour number of vehicle movements - this did not reflect events where attendance occurred at a particular time rather than over the course of a day.

· Limit of 50 vehicle movements per hour standard – was assessed as being unduly restrictive for temporary events.

· Monitoring of the number of per hour vehicle movements – was considered to be difficult to monitor and would require many staff hours to enforce on a consistent basis.

101 Proposed standard 10, as notified in Variation 4F, reads as follows (underlining shows proposed additional text, ~~strikethrough~~ shows proposed deletion):

Traffic

10. Traffic expected to be generated by the temporary event must not exceed of 50 vehicle movements in any one hour or 800 vehicle movements per day, whichever is greater.

102 Submission 1 requests that standard 10 is re-written, as follows:

10. Patrons expected to attend the event must not exceed 450 in any hour up to a maximum of 3,600 people per day.

Note: this equates to a maximum of 150 vehicle movements per hour or 1,200 vehicle movements per day based on an assumption of 1 car per 6 patrons.

103 The submission proposes that the limit for the permitted activity standard is changed and effectively raised from the existing 50 vehicle movements per hour or 800 vehicle movements per day, to a proposed 150 vehicle movements per hour or 1,200 vehicle movements per day. The submissions states that 150 vehicle movements per hour can easily be accommodated within the existing legal road network.

104 To further support this requested change to the limits for traffic movements the submitter has also provided an analysis of the information contained within temporary event forms that Council has received between October 2018 to November 2019. This analysis concludes that the current and proposed limits (as notified) would be set too low for a permitted activity standard, resulting in events that had previously been held with no traffic issues now requiring a resource consent for traffic impacts. Raising the maximum limit to 1,200 vehicle movements per day (or 3,600 people per day based on 6 patrons per car) would mean that the vast majority (98%) of the temporary events analysed would now meet the permitted activity standards for vehicle movements generated and would not trigger the need for resource consent.

105 One of the reasons provided by the submitter for the proposed changes is that the wording in the notified version of standard 10 was thought to be confusing and difficult to interpret, and the revised wording was suggested to be more enabling and consistent with other rules in the plan.

106 The change from ‘vehicle movements’ as a measurement of traffic impact to ‘patrons attending’ was justified in the submission because it was thought that event organisers typically work on the basis of number of visitors and do not fully understand how to apply the definition of vehicle movements in the PDP to temporary events.

3.2.2 Assessment

107 The specific amendments sought to Variation 4F, Rule 12B.1.1, permitted activity standard 10 are addressed in detail below.

108 The submission also requests that the permitted activity standard 10 which specifies the limit for people attending/vehicle movements is raised to enable more temporary activities to be considered under the permitted activity category. I consider the evidence and analysis provided from the submitter on traffic movements of temporary events held in the previous 12-month period (October 2018 - November 2019) to be compelling. I note that a number of the events in the information provided didn’t specify the vehicle movements as the information was not provided on the temporary event form. However, the information provided does still provide useful insight into the scale and impact of the temporary events occurring in the District and the impact of the Variation 4F permitted activity provisions.

109 I also note that there have been very few traffic complaints received by Council in relation to temporary events across the same time period. The submission states that the change to 150 vehicle movements per hour can be easily accommodated without impacting on the functioning of the legal road network for the District. As the submitter is the road controlling authority for the District and is ultimately responsible for ensuring a safe and efficient local road network, I accept this assertion.

110 I also agree with the request to use both the measurements of ‘vehicle movements’ and ‘patrons attending’. In my view this approach will provide some clarity to users of the Proposed District Plan when considering the temporary events provisions, although it is my view that consistently using the term ‘people’ rather than ‘patrons’ would be even clearer. The wording of the subsequent note beneath standard 10 provides an opportunity to explain how the number of attendees relates and converts to the vehicle movement standards.

111 The text proposed in the written submission slightly alters the intent of standard 10 in that an hourly limit is described up to a maximum amount. This is different to the standard that was proposed and notified which provided an hourly limit or maximum limit, whichever was greater. It is my view that the use of ‘or’ provides the greatest flexibility to reflect the varied nature of the temporary events. I note that the submitter has also used the term ‘or’ in the note explaining the standard and I recommend that this is retained.

112 On this basis, I concur with the submitter that raising the permitted activity standard threshold in standard 10 in relation to vehicle movements and providing both the number of vehicle movements and the number of people attending the event would be appropriate. I consider the changes proposed within the submission would achieve an appropriate balance of enabling temporary events to occur within an acceptable envelope of traffic impacts.

3.2.3 Recommendations

113 I recommend that the written submission seeking amendments to the wording of Variation 4F, Rule 12B.1.1, permitted activity standard 10 is accepted in part.

114 For greater clarity for standard 10, I recommend retaining the vehicle movements measurement in the standard but incorporating the number of people comparison in the ‘note’ below. Raising the levels of permissible traffic movements/people attending the events will enable a more balanced approach to managing traffic effects for temporary events. I have also recommended additional explanatory text to the note to provide greater clarity to plan users.

115 I therefore recommend the following changes to the wording for standard 10 should be as follows:

Traffic

10. Traffic expected to be generated by the temporary event must not exceed ~~of 50~~ 150 vehicle movements in any one hour or ~~800~~ 1,200 vehicle movements per day, whichever is greater.

Note: For the purpose of estimating vehicle movements under this standard, these vehicle movement thresholds ~~This~~ equates to up to 450 people attending the event in any hour or 3,600 people attending per day, whichever is greater, based on an assumption of 1 car per 6 people.

3.3 Variation 4F – Parking for temporary events

3.3.1 Matters Raised by Submitters

116 In submission 1, S Mallon, Group Manager of Infrastructure Services, Kāpiti Coast District Council proposes amendments to permitted activity standard 11, proposed under Rule 12B.1.1, as follows:

11. Parking for the event must comply with the following:

a) For temporary events (such as performances) which have a specific start and finish time parking must be provided as entertainment activities in accordance with rule 11P.1.10.

b) Parking for ~~the~~ all other events must be ~~accommodated~~ provided on the site of the temporary event or by other off-street parking arrangements shown in the transport management plan to accommodate expected patrons per hour.

117 The submitter states that the amendments will recognise and seek to better manage the effects that different events will have on the network. In particular, the intent of the submission is to better address the impacts of temporary events on traffic and transportation where visitors arrive at a site all at once and leave at the same time.

3.3.2 Assessment

118 I concur with the intent of the submission, in that different types of events generate different types of traffic effects and should be managed accordingly. The submission highlights the difference between the traffic effects of an event that commences and finishes at a single point in time (and therefore all people arrive and depart at the same time) when compared to an event that runs across a defined time period and people have flexibility of when they attend and depart the event within that time period.

119 The second set of changes suggested in the submission requires that the parking arrangements must be outlined within a transport management plan and must be designed to accommodate the number of people attending per hour. A separate newly proposed standard (see 3.6.1 of this report) requires the transport management plan to be provided to Council.

120 I note that the submission proposes two new standards for permitted activity Rule 12B.1.1 to address traffic effects for temporary events. One relates to addressing on-site car parking and the other relates to traffic management planning (predominantly on-site measures). On-site car parking provisions and traffic control measures for temporary events were not proposed to change under Variation 4F. Variation 4F sought to address the impact of vehicle movements on the operating legal road network only.

121 Although the issues raised are valid on-site parking considerations, I consider they fall out of scope of proposed Variation 4F and accordingly cannot be considered. Variation 4F sought to address vehicle movements to and from temporary events within the existing legal road network and did not suggest any changes to the parking provisions. Changes to parking provisions were not evaluated and members of the public did not have adequate opportunity to consider and comment on changes to the parking standard. Legal advice has been sought and has confirmed that this point of the submission be considered to be outside of the scope of Variation 4F.

3.3.3 Recommendations

122 I recommend that the content of the additional permitted activity standard 11, proposed in the submission received, is out of scope for this Variation. Rule 12B.1.1, standard 11 remains unchanged in the Proposed District Plan. Accordingly, I recommend this part of the submission be rejected.

3.4 Variation 4F – Transport Management Plan

3.4.1 Matters Raised by Submitters

123 Submission 1 from Sean Mallon, Group Manager of Infrastructure Services, Kāpiti Coast District Council proposes a new permitted activity standard 12, proposed under Rule 12B.1.1, as follows:

12. A Transport Management Plan must accompany the management plan required by standard 8 above setting out the methods by which compliance with the standards 10 and 11 will be achieved. The Management Plan must identify:

· number of people expected;

· vehicle access, servicing and car parking arrangements;

· any temporary traffic management measures on legal road;

· cycle and pedestrian access and (including cycling parking);

· any methods to encourage the use of alternative transport modes (such as public transport, cycling and walking); and

· complaints procedures.

3.4.2 Assessment

124 The proposed standard from Submitter 1 seeks that the anticipated traffic effects of the temporary event are documented through a transport management plan. This document will demonstrate the event organiser’s ability to comply with the required traffic permitted activity standard. This management plan approach is not unique; in fact, it is proposed that the transport management plan should be submitted as part of a management plan already required under standard 8 (relating to managing noise effects). The transport management plan would be subject to the same requirements under existing standard 8, e.g. be submitted to Council 10 working days prior to the event.

125 My view is that the issues raised are valid traffic event management considerations but they fall out of scope of proposed Variation 4F. Variation 4F sought to improve an existing provision in the District Plan that managed vehicle movements for temporary events within the existing legal road network. The submission seeks changes to deal with a range of matters beyond vehicle movements. Legal advice has been sought and has confirmed that this point of the submission is outside of the scope of Variation 4F, and therefore cannot be considered.

3.4.3 Recommendations

126 I recommend that the additional permitted activity standard 12, proposed in the submission received is out of scope for Variation 4F. Rule 12B.1.1, standard 12 remains unchanged in the Proposed District Plan. Accordingly, I recommend this part of the submission be rejected.

3.5 Conclusion on the Variation provisions

127 I consider that the one submission on Variation 4F should be accepted in part and that provisions in chapter 12 of the Proposed District Plan be amended as set out in section 5 below. My reasons for this are set out in Sections 3.2 - 3.4 of this report.

128 Variations 4 (A-E) and (G-H) received no submissions from the public and are therefore currently being treated as operative in accordance with RMA section 86F, as of 19 December 2019. This report recommends that these Variations are all formally accepted with no amendments.

129 My overall conclusion is that Proposed Variations 4 (A-E), (F – as amended) and (G-H) will be efficient and effective in achieving the purpose of the RMA, the purpose of the variations, the relevant objectives of this plan and other relevant statutory documents as discussed in this report.

Section 4: S32AA Evaluation of changes

130 Section 32AA of the RMA requires that a proposal is further evaluated for any changes that have been made to a proposal since the previous evaluation report was undertaken. The proposal must be undertaken at a level of detail that corresponds to the scale and significance of the change.

131 The previous evaluation report outlined that the main issue relevant to Variation 4F and the temporary event permitted activity standards in the Proposed District Plan was:

132 The vehicle movement limit of 50 vehicle movements per hour was not practical for temporary events where most people show up at a particular time as opposed to showing up over the course of a few hours. The standard is also difficult to monitor and enforce.

133 In response, an amendment was proposed to simplify the standards applicable to temporary events, making them more achievable for most temporary events, as follows:

134 Amend Rule 12B.1.1 – Standard 10 as follows:

Traffic

10. Traffic expected to be generated by the temporary event must not exceed of 50 vehicle movements in any one hour or 800 vehicle movements per day, whichever is greater.

135 The amendment under Variation 4F introduced a ‘per day’ limit option for vehicle movements which introduced flexibility to better accommodate the nature of temporary events.

136 The proposed amendments were assessed as having low scale and significance of effects and the evaluation approach was simplified: the option was compared with a single alternative option (the status quo PDP provisions) and the evaluation was made at a broad district-wide level.

137 The s32 report concludes that the changes proposed in Variation 4F are the most appropriate way to achieve the PDP objectives, by comparison with the reasonably practicable alternative approaches. In achieving the PDP objectives, the proposed amendments will also contribute to achieving the sustainable management purpose of the RMA.

138 Following analysis of the submission received, further changes to Variation 4F are recommended as follows:

Traffic

10. Traffic expected to be generated by the temporary event must not exceed ~~of 50~~ 150 vehicle movements in any one hour or ~~800~~ 1,200 vehicle movements per day, whichever is greater.

Note: For the purpose of estimating vehicle movements under this standard, these vehicle movement thresholds equate to up to 450 people attending the event in any hour or 3,600 people attending per day, whichever is greater, based on an assumption of 1 car per 6 people.

139 The proposed changes will increase the permitted activity limit for vehicle movements association with temporary effects and provide an informative note that provide a conversion of vehicle movements to number of people attending the event to enable better understanding of the standard.

140 The first change will allow for a significant proportion of temporary events to occur within permitted activity vehicle movement standards. Council’s Infrastructure Services Group have stated that the legal road network is able to accommodate the new hourly vehicle movement limits.

141 The second change will provide greater clarity for plan users in understanding how to interpret and apply the vehicle movement plan requirements. Event organisers will better understand how many people can attend the event and how the Council converts that figure into vehicle movements.

142 The two changes have been evaluated and will:

· provide a more practical basis for managing the actual and potential adverse effects of temporary events

· further remove obstacles to permitted activity temporary events and remove the need for (and cost of) resource consents.

· better enable the economic and employment benefits of temporary events.

· be straightforward and readily able to be implemented, with no administrative PDP inefficiency.

· enhance the ability to achieve the PDP community wellbeing objectives.

143 Further evaluation under s32AA shows the changes to the proposed amendments do not affect the conclusions of the s32 evaluation.

144 Overall, I consider that the changes will be efficient and effective in achieving the purpose of the RMA, the relevant objectives of this plan and other relevant statutory documents for the reasons set out in the Section 32 & 32AA analysis undertaken and the assessment included in Section 3 of this report.

Section 5: Overall Recommendation

145 Based on the analysis contained within this report, the submission received, the Section 32 report and the evaluation of changes under s32AA and other relevant statutory matters, it is recommended that the Strategy and Operations Committee approve Variations 4 (A-H) as follows:

146 Approve the following Variations with no changes (as shown in Appendix 1.1 but excluding Variation 4F):

· Variation 4A - Chapter 1: Review of a number of defined Terms.

· Variation 4B – Chapter 3: Review of Earthworks Policies

· Variation 4C – Chapter 5: Changes to Living Zone

· Variation 4D – Chapter 6 Changes to the Working Zone

· Variation 4E – Changes to Traffic and Transportation related rules

· Variation 4G – Amendments to Rule 11P.1.2 parking requirements for Residential Activities.

· Variation 4H – Amend Rural Zone Rule 7A.5.7 to clarify the activity status of general retail activities in the Rural Zone.

147 Approve with amendment:

· Variation 4F – Amendments to temporary event provisions.

148 The recommended amendment to Variation 4F is to Rule 12B.1.1, Standard 10 of the Proposed District Plan, is as follows:

Table 12B.1. Permitted Activities

The following activities are permitted activities, provided that they comply with all corresponding permitted activity standards in this table, and all relevant rules and permitted activity standards in other chapters (unless otherwise specified).

Permitted Activities Standards

…

Traffic

10. Traffic expected to be generated by the temporary event must not exceed ~~of 50~~ 150 vehicle movements in any one hour or ~~800~~ 1,200 vehicle movements per day, whichever is greater.

Note: For the purpose of estimating vehicle movements under this standard, these vehicle movement thresholds equate to up to 450 people attending the event in any hour or 3,600 people attending per day, whichever is greater, based on an assumption of 1 car per 6 people.

Submission number	Name	Support/ oppose/ seek amendment	Decision sought	Further submission	Recommendation
1	Kāpiti Coast District Council	Support and seek amendment	Amend Rule 12B.1.1 – standard 10 as follows: Traffic ~~10. Traffic expected to be generated by the temporary event must not exceed of 50 vehicle movements in any one hour or 800 vehicle movements per day, whichever is greater.~~ Insert new standards 10, 11 and 12 as follows: 10. Patrons expected to attend the event must not exceed 450 in any hour up to a maximum of 3,600 people per day. Note: this equates to a maximum of 150 vehicle movements per hour or 1,200 vehicle movements per day based on an assumption of 1 car per 6 patrons.	None	Accept in part and amend Rule 12B.1.1 – standard 10 as follows: Traffic 10. Traffic expected to be generated by the temporary event must not exceed of 50 150 vehicle movements in any one hour or ~~800~~ 1,200 vehicle movements per day, whichever is greater. Note: For the purpose of estimating vehicle movements under this standard, these vehicle movement thresholds equate to up to 450 people attending the event in any hour or 3,600 people attending per day, whichever is greater, based on an assumption of 1 car per 6 people.
			Amend Rule 12B.1.1 – introduce new standard 11 as follows: 11. Parking for the event must comply with the following: a) For temporary events (such as performances) which have a specific start and finish time parking must be provided as entertainment activities in accordance with rule 11P.1.10. b) 2. Parking for ~~the~~ all other events must be ~~accommodated~~ provided on the site of the temporary event or by other off-street arrangements shown in the transport management plan to accommodate expected patrons per hour.	None	Reject. Request is out of scope of Variation 4F. Rule 12B.1.1, standard 11 remains unchanged in the Proposed District Plan.
Amend Rule 12B.1.1 – introduce new standard 12 as follows: 12. A Transport Management Plan must accompany the management plan required by standard 8 above setting out the methods by which compliance with standards 10 and 11 will be achieved. The Management Plan must identify: · Number of people expected; · Vehicle access, servicing and car parking arrangements; · Any temporary traffic management measures on legal road; · Cycle and pedestrian access and (including cycle parking); · Any methods to encourage the use of alternative transport modes (such as public transport, cycling and walking); and · Complaints procedures.	None	Reject. Request is out of scope of Variation 4F. Rule 12B.1.1, standard 12 remains unchanged in the Proposed District Plan.

Council Meeting Agenda

14 May 2020

Appendix 1 Policy on Rates Remission for Land Protected for Natural or Cultural Conservation Purposes.

Appendix 2 Properties recommended to receive Rates Remission for Natural or Cultural Conservation Purposes in 2018/2019, and recommended amounts.

Appendix 1

(from the Long Term Plan Rates Remission Policy)

Part 7

Rates Remissions for Land Protected for Natural or Cultural Conservation Purposes

Policy Objective

The objective of this Policy is to:

· preserve and promote natural resources and heritage land to encourage the maintenance, enhancement and protection of land for natural or cultural purposes.

Community Outcomes

The Community Outcomes that this Policy relates to are:

· Outcome 1: there are healthy natural systems which people can enjoy; and

· Outcome 2: local character is retained within a cohesive District.

Policy Conditions and Criteria

This Policy supports the provisions of the Kāpiti Coast District Plan and the Heritage Strategy. It recognises that most heritage features are already protected by rules in the District Plan and encourages landowners to maintain, enhance and protect heritage features by offering a financial incentive.

Ratepayers who own rating units which have some feature of cultural or natural heritage which is voluntarily protected may qualify for remission of rates under this Policy, for example:

· properties that have a QEII Covenant under section 22 of the Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust Act 1977 registered on their Certificate(s) of Title;

· properties that have a Conservation Covenant with the Department of Conservation registered on their Certificate(s) of Title;

· properties that have a site listed in the District Plan Heritage Register (excluding any buildings);

· appropriately protected riparian strips; and

· heritage features that are protected by a Section 221 consent notice (Resource Management Act 1991) registered on the Certificate of Title (excluding buildings).

This Policy does not apply to land that is non-rateable under section 8 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 and is liable only for rates for water supply, wastewater disposal, waste collection or recycling.

Applications for rates remission in accordance with this Policy must be in writing and supported by documentary evidence of the protected status of the rating unit, for example, a copy of the covenant agreement or other legal mechanism.

In considering any application for remission of rates under this Policy, the Council Committee responsible for the Council’s environmental and natural heritage portfolio (at the time of adopting this Policy this is the Environment and Community Development Committee) will consider the following criteria:

· the extent to which the preservation of natural or cultural heritage will be promoted by granting remission on rates on the rating unit;

· the degree to which features of natural or cultural heritage are present on the land;

· the degree to which features of natural or cultural heritage inhibit the economic utilisation of the land;

· whether, and to what extent, public access to/over the heritage feature is provided for;

· the extent to which the heritage feature is legally (e.g. covenanted) and physically (e.g. fenced) protected;

· in respect of Geological Sites and Wāhi Tapu:

o the importance of the place to the tāngata whenua;

o the community association with, or public esteem for, the place;

o the potential of the place for public education;

o the representative quality and/or a quality or type or rarity that is important to the District;

o the potential of the place as a wildlife refuge or feeding area;

o the potential of the place for its diversity in flora and fauna.

· in respect of Ecological Sites (Areas of Significant Indigenous Vegetation and Significant Habitats of Indigenous Flora) whether the site has:

Representativeness - The site contains an ecosystem that is under-represented or unique in the ecological district;

Rarity - The site contains threatened ecosystems; threatened species; and species that are endemic to the ecological district;

Diversity – The site has a diversity of ecosystems species and vegetation;

Distinctiveness – The site contains large / dense population of viable species; is largely in its natural state or restorable; has an uninterrupted ecological sequence; and contains significant land forms;

Continuity and Linkage within Landscape: – The site provides, or has potential to provide, corridor/buffer zone to an existing area;

Cultural Values – The site has: traditional importance for Māori; recreational values; significant landscape value; protection of soil values; water catchment protection; recreation or tourism importance; and aesthetic coherence;

Ecological Restoration - an ability to be restored; difficulty of restoration; and cost / time;

Landscape Integrity - significance to the original character of the landscape; isolated feature (for example, does it stand out or blend in?); and whether it has a role in landscape protection; and

Sustainability - size and shape of area; activities occurring on the boundaries which may affect its sustainability; adjoins another protected area; links; and easily managed.

Where remission of rates is granted under this Policy the landowner, in conjunction with the Council, will be required to develop a Heritage Management Plan.

The purpose of a Heritage Management Plan is to set out a plan of action for managing a heritage feature within the Kāpiti Coast District that is subject to rates remission.

The Heritage Management Plan will:

· be reviewed on an annual basis by the Council in conjunction with the landowner;

· may contain conditions which shall be complied with on an on-going basis, including requirements to fence off the area, undertake weed control and restoration, undertake pest control and keep stock out of the area; and

· will ensure that the site will be managed in a manner that protects and enhances the heritage feature.

Any decision on whether to grant remission on rates will be at the discretion of the Council Committee responsible for the Council’s environmental and natural heritage portfolio (at the time of adopting this Policy this is the Environment and Community Development Committee). The amount of remission will be determined on a case-by-case basis by that same Committee, taking into account the merits of the protected feature and the extent to which it meets the criteria specified in this Policy. The amount of rates remission will be reviewed by that same Committee as appropriate.

In granting rates remission under this Policy, the Council Committee responsible for the Council’s environmental and natural heritage portfolio (at the time of adopting this Policy this is the Environment and Community Development Committee) may specify certain conditions before remission will be granted. Applicants will be required to agree in writing to these conditions and to pay any remitted rates if the conditions are violated.

Appendix 2 - Properties recommended to receive Rates Remission for

Land Protected for Natural or Cultural Conservation Purposes in

2018/2019, and recommended amounts

	Property Location		Valuation		Amount
	331 Valley Road		1540004300		$395
	222 Valley Road		1530006403		$262
	62 Hadfield Road		1490005300		$262
	234 Te Hapua Road		1489001104		$262
	140 Taylors Road		1486120207		$131
	150 Taylors Road		1486120208		$131
	96 Ōtaki Gorge Road		1488109601		$131
	243 North Highway 1, Ōtaki		1486124200		$395
	432 Mangaone South Rd		1490023400		$787
	518 Mangaone South Rd		1490023401		$131
	115 Arcus Rd, Te Horo		1488127403		$131
	566 Rahui Rd, Ōtaki		1488151200		$655
	0 Akatarawa Road, Waikanae		1488516803		$524
	117 Ruapehu Street		1525164400		$131
	197 State Highway 1		1526204900		$131
	310-312 Te Hapua Road		1489001116		$395
	67 Waihoanga Road		1488158704		$262
	331 Ōtaki Gorge Rd		1488106600		$262
	176 Te Hapua Rd,		1489000800		$262
	69 Mickell Road, Te Horo		1488166504		$395
	168 Taylors Rd		1486120212		$262
	200 Reikorangi Road		1488516102		$131
	54 Kohekohe Road		1494149000		$131
Property Location		Valuation No.		Amount
30-34 Greendale Drive, Paraparaumu		1526035024		$262
71 Aston Road, Paraparaumu		1515012400		$524
366 State Highway 1, Paekākāriki		1540002404		$262
207 Te Hapua Road		1489001114		$131
98 Old Coach Road North		1486103300		$395
5 Matata Place		1496055362		$131
227 Te Hapua Rd		1489001113		$262
54 Makora Rd		1526004900		$131
46 Ruahine St		1525131500		$131
362 State Highway 1, Paraparaumu		1515011900		$524
16 Aston Road, Paraparaumu		1515012422		$395
15 Catley Road, Te Horo		1488124001		$131
14 Riwai Street		1525142300		$131
158 Taylors Road, Ōtaki		1486120209		$262
15 Manu Grove		1495107600		$131
87 Belvedere Avenue		1495129300		$131
126 Te Hapua Rd		1489000702		$262
184 State Highway 1, Paraparaumu		1526227100		$262
70 Ōtaki Gorge Road		1488108900		$131

0 State Highway 1 South, Ōtaki		1486117000		$262
81 Forest Lakes Road, Ōtaki		1486119900		$262
204 Te Hapua Road, Waikanae		1489001100		$524
108 Huia Street, Waikanae		1496035150		$262
152 Te Hapua Road,		1489000700		$524
298 Mangaone Road, Waikanae		1490024900		$395
20-24 Reikorangi Road, Waikanae		1488515600		$131
80 Waterfall Rd, Paraparaumu,,		1540004100		$395
99 State Highway 1, Waikanae		1489019600		$395
387, 405 Ōtaki Gorge Road		1488107600		$262
0 Ōtaki Gorge Road, Ōtaki		1488107000		$262
362-368 Ōtaki Gorge Road,		1488120000		$395
67 Aston Road, Waikanae,		1515013800		$524
60 Octavius Road, Waikanae		1490005605		$262
908 Ōtaki Gorge Road, Ōtaki		1488164700		$1,129
217 State Highway 1		1526205500		$131
528-530 State Highway 1, Paekākāriki		1540002500		$655
190 Te Hapua Road, Waikanae		1489001101		$131
3 Hadfield Road, Te Horo		1490003207		$262
92 Old Hautere Road, Te Horo		1488118100		$262
111 Ngatiawa Rd		1490018701		$131
156 Maungakotukutuku Rd		1540004400		$262
2 Kereru St , Waikanae,,		1496065000		$131
248 Ngarara Road,		1489015200BB		$655
66 Maurice Way, Waikanae		1489017300		$262
Park Avenue		1493175200		$655
53 Mangaone Road		1490018900		$131
121 Otaihanga Rd		1526032800		$262
2 Jacks Bush Road,		1489016200		$131
8 Jacks Bush Road		1489016201		$262
16 Jacks Bush Road,		1489016203		$262
	31 Jacks Bush Road,		1489016204		$131
	Property location		Valuation no.		Amount
	27 Jacks Bush Road,		1489016205		$131
	19 Jacks Bush Road,		1489016206		$131
	17 Jacks Bush Road,		1489016207		$131
	Hadfield Road, Te Horo		1490003212		$262
	568 Ōtaki Gorge Road, Ōtaki		1488157510		$262
	231 Te Hapua Road, Ōtaki*		1489001115		$262
	233 Te Hapua Road, Ōtaki*		1489001111		$262
	182 Te Hapua Road, Ōtaki		1489000900		$524
	1400 Ōtaki Gorge Rd, Ōtaki		1488165809		$1,316
	319 Mangaone Nth Rd, Hautere		1488167200		$655
	79 Belvedere Avenue, Waikanae		1495128900		$131
	95 Panorama Drive, Paraparaumu		1530150001		$395
	146 Rahui Road, Ōtaki		1486155800		$131
	153 Main Road North, Paraparaumu		1526203500		$262
	218 Pukenamu Road, Ōtaki		1489000213		$262
	11 Kakariki Grove, Waikanae		1496066800		$262
	0 State Highway 1, Ōtaki		1486122400		$395
	44 Manu Grove, Waikanae		1495118800		$262
	129 Belvedere Avenue, Waikanae		1495171400		$131
	95 Belvedere Avenue, Waikanae		1495129700		$131
	91A Ringawhati Road		1486154000		$262
	2 Riwai Street, Paraparaumu		1525141700		$131
	2 Ocean Vista Lane, Paraparaumu		1530150011		$131
	243 SH1 Otaki*		1486124200		$395
	47 Oriwa Crescent, Otaki*		1503124100		$131
	7 Morrison Road, Te Horo*				$262
	16 Elizabeth Street, Waikanae*		1496002100		$131
	12 Greendale Road, Paraparaumu*		1526035026		$131
	4 Ocean Vista Lane, Paraparaumu*		1530150010		$131
					Total - $29,852

Council Meeting Agenda

14 May 2020

8.5 Submissions on the Government Policy Statement for Land Transport 2021 and Draft New Zealand Rail Plan

Author: Suzanne Rushmere, Roading Network Planner

Authoriser: Sean Mallon, Group Manager Infrastructure Services

Purpose of Report

1 To seek approval of the submissions to the Ministry of Transport Relating to the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2021 (GPS 2021) and Draft New Zealand Rail Plan (DNZRP).

Delegation

2 Council has the authority to make this decision under section A2 of the Governance Structure.

BACKGROUND

3 The Ministry of Transport have released the GPS 2021 and DRNZ Rail Plan, and are seeking feedback by 11 May 2020.

4 As the submission is due by 11 May 2020, feedback has been sought at a Council briefing on 7 May 2020. This feedback has informed the submission to the Ministry of Transport on both the GPS 2021 and DNZRP.

Issues and Options

Issues

5 Whilst the principles contained within both these documents are generally to be supported it is considered that there are some issues that should be brought to the attention of MOT. A summary of these documents and the submissions are set out below.

GPS 2021

6 GPS 2021 influences the decision on how transport funding will be invested across a number of transport activity classes.

7 GPS 2021 contributes to the five outcomes identified in the Ministry of Transport’s Transport Outcomes Framework, which are:

· Inclusive access;

· Economic prosperity;

· Healthy and safe people;

· Environmental sustainability; and

· Resilience and Security.

8 Whilst GPS 2021 builds upon GPS 2018, the Strategic Priorities have changed. GPS 2018 had four strategic priorities including safety, access, environment and value for money. The strategic priorities in GPS 2021 include safety, better travel options, improving freight connections and climate change.

9 The main differences are that the old access priority has been split into better travel options an improving freight connections, and value for money is now a principle and not a priority.

10 GPS 2021 identifies 11 activity classes including

· Road to Zero

· Public transport services

· Public transport infrastructure

· Walking and cycling improvements

· Local road improvements

· State highway improvements

· State highway maintenance

· Local road maintenance

· Investment management

· Rail network

· Coastal shipping

11 The four new activity classes from GPS 2018 are road to zero (previously safety), rail network (previously transitional rail), public transport services and public transport infrastructure, and coastal shipping.

12 Further detail on the four strategic priorities and investments are set out below.

Safety

13 The outcome of developing a transport system where no-one is killed or seriously injures will be delivered through:

· Infrastructure safety treatments on roads;

· Enhancing safety on footpaths and cycleways

· Policing including alcohol, drugs and speed;

· Road safety campaigns

· Implementing Rail Investment Plan

· Increasing access to safer modes with initial priority in cities including Wellington;

· Shaping land use form and design

Better Travel Options

14 The outcome of providing people with better travel options will be delivered through:

· Operating and maintaining existing network;

· Supporting transport investments that enable, support and shape growth;

· Implementing mode shift for the Cities including Wellington;

· Implementing New Zealand Rail Plan;

· Supporting disability action plans;

· Providing resilient, safe transport network; and

· Projects like Let’s Get Wellington Moving.

Improved Freight Connections

15 The outcome of improving freight connections to support economic development will be delivered through:

· Maintaining the roads and railways that are crucial for linking production points;

· Managing resilience risks;

· Implementing New Zealand Rail Plan;

· Improving mode choice for moving freight by coastal shipping; and

· Improving the safe and efficient movement of freight.

Climate Change

16 The outcome of transforming to a low carbon travel system will be delivered through:

· Waka Kotahi implementing its Sustainability Strategy and Action Plan;

· Investment decision making that supports national commitments on emissions reduction; and

· Waka Kotahi undertaking relevant actions identified in the National Adaptation Plan.

Investment

17 The GPS 2021 recognises that many projects are funded by NZTA and local authorities and that alternative funding options should be considered for larger scale schemes.

18 It has proposed the development of a funding toolkit which may include funding options such as targeted rates, capturing costs through revenue generation and public private partnerships.

19 The GPS also identifies a number of principles for investment which will be used to assess funding requests including alignment with the strategic priorities in the GPS, the extent to which the best results being achieved against the strategic priorities for best cost.

20 The funding share for local improvements has dropped by up to 50% compared to GPS 2018 in most future years, potentially as a result of the addition of new activity classes, but the same level of drop is not seen for investment on state highway improvements. However, there is an increase in investment for local road maintenance.

Submission

21 The proposed submission at attachment 1 to this report largely supports the GPS 2021 but considers that there are a number of areas worthy of comment. These include:

· The increase in activity classes and funding for them is supported but not at the expense of other activity classes;

· The need to see investment in public transport and electrification / double tracking to support communities in the north of the district;

· There is a need to consider funding toolkit with local authorities to ensure sustainability;

· Increased investment is to be welcomed, but there is possible constraints in local share funding;

· The timing of the National Land Transport Programme and Long Term Plan funding should be closely aligned;

· We have concerns over the reduction in local road improvements funding;

· Investment in Wellington Region e.g. metropolitan rail line is welcomed and Lets Get Wellington moving but consider further work is required on understanding relative cost allocation and potential associated benefits across the Region; and

· GPD 2021 lacks some of the detail from GPS 2018 that helped to provide a strong direction.

Draft New Zealand Rail Plan

22 This Draft New Zealand Rail Plan sets out the strategic priorities for rail, including the establishment of a new long term planning and funding framework and investment priorities for rail.

23 The strategic investment priority is to invest in the national rail network to maintain freight rail and provide a platform for growth; and investing in metropolitan rail to support our larger cities of Auckland and Wellington.

24 Proposals that are relevant to the Kapiti District include those contained within the Wellington Metropolitan Rail Upgrade Programme such as the turn back facility at Plimmerton to make it a terminus station. Also:

· Increased capacity at Wellington Station;

· Reducing the length of single track north of railway;

· Standardised loop lengths between Palmerston North and Waikanae; and

· A new platform at Waikanae and further grade separation of the Kapiti Line.

25 It appears from the document that the only scheme currently earmarked for investment is the Plimmerton turn back facility. All the rest are identified as future opportunities.

26 The proposed submission focusses on:

· Being largely supportive of the Draft New Zealand Rail Plan;

· Seeking further investment in the Kapiti Line;

· Advocating for dual tracking and electrification north of Waikanae to support growth and the trans-modal rail hub and Palmerston North; and

· Welcoming $100 million in rail investment per year in the GPS 2021 but not at the expense of other activity classes.

Considerations

Policy considerations

27 There are no policy considerations at this stage in but both the GPS 2021 and DNZRP will inform the development of Council strategies and work programmes.

Legal considerations

28 There are no legal considerations at this stage but some changes are required to the Land Transport Management Act to implement the new planning and funding framework for rail.

Financial considerations

29 There are no financial considerations at this stage, but both the GPS 2021 and DNZRP will inform the development of Council strategies and work programmes. This is why we are seeking to be consulted on the funding toolkit being developed through GPS 2021.

Tāngata whenua considerations

30 Feedback from iwi has not been sought in relation to this submission.

Strategic considerations

31 They strategic priorities in the GPS 2021 and DNZRP will contribute indirectly to the following outcomes and goals in the Long Term Plan:

· infrastructure investment that supports growth;

· improved accessibility to Council Services;

· an effective response to climate change;

· wise management of public resources;

· a community that is more resilient; and

· improved biodiversity and environment and through sustainable practices.

Significance and Engagement

Significance policy

32 This matter has a low level of significance under Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. However, it may impact on work programmes and transport investment decisions.

Engagement planning

33 There is no requirement for engagement planning.

Publicity

34 There is no requirement for publicity.

Recommendations

35 That the Council approves the submissions on the GPS 2021 and DNZRP.

Appendices

1. Submission on GPS on Land Transport 2021 ⇩

2. Submission on the Draft New Zealand Rail Plan ⇩

Council Meeting Agenda

14 May 2020

Date 11 May 2020

Ministry of Transport
PO Box 3175
WELLINGTON 6140
Attn: GPS Team

Dear Sir / Madam

Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2021

1. Thank you for the opportunity to submit on the draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport (GPS) 2021.

2. Kapiti Coast District Council recognises that engagement is continuing on this document that was produced pre COVID-19. However, it is understood that there is likely to be a change to the draft GPS 2021 because of COVID-19, and that COVOD-19 will impact on the Transport Agency’s Investment Programme, consultation on the draft Investment Prioritisation Method and Arataki.

3. Council wishes to see further consultation on any proposed changes to the GPS 2021 once the impact of COVID-19 on transport investment is fully understood.

Overview and Strategic Priorities

4. Council supports the strategic priorities for land transport investment that are contained within the GPS in principle. However, we would like to take this opportunity to raise a number of issues that are important for Kapiti Coast District Council.

5. Council recognises the need to develop a safe transport system, provide people with better transport options, and develop a low carbon transport system. We are in the process of refreshing our Sustainable Transport Strategy and our proposed key focus areas align well with these priorities.

6. We also welcome the commitment to New Zealand Rail Plan and Lets Get Wellington Moving (LGWM). However, we are concerned that the full understanding of cost allocation and relative benefits across the Region are not yet fully understood and would be concerned if those costs allocated to Kapiti outway the potential benefits. The scale of overall costs are also a concern if they were to limit future funding availability for other local transport improvement initiatives.

7. Council is also supportive of the need to look at alternative funding models for large intergenerational projects with the potential for loan funding or general taxation funding additional to the current fund could be considered.

Safety

8. As with national trends, the Kāpiti Coast District has seen the number of serious and fatal crashes increase over the previous 5 years and a high risk to motorcyclists and pedestrians. Therefore, we support safety being a high priority, and the vision that no-one is killed or seriously injured on our roads.

9. Council welcomes that infrastructure safety treatments on roads as a key element of the Road to Zero to be implemented through GPS 2021 and supports the development of the Accessible Streets Regulatory Package.

10. Road to Zero identifies a critical issue as being that “87% of our speed limits are not appropriate for the conditions of our roads” and Council recently reviewed its local speed limits on rural roads and most town centres in accordance with the Speed Management Guide. Council would welcome further regulatory support and guidance for Local Authorities relating to the creation of more consistent speed limits based on form, function, design and risk.

11. In setting appropriate speed limits, it should also be recognised that speed limit changes very often need to be complemented by physical safety improvements. Council considers that, in order to support the implementation of road safety initiatives, for speed management and the system management focus areas in Road to Zero, increased funding assistance should be considered to enable additional resourcing.

Better Travel Options

12. There appears to be little line of sight between the outcomes (such as improved access and social and economic opportunities and public transport being more available and accessible), and how these outcomes will be delivered. As an example, improving the public transport network (which includes physical measures as well as vehicles) is not identified as a way of delivering the outcomes. Similarly, GPS 2021 does not refer to measures that improve inter-modal connectivity as a way of making public transport more accessible and encouraging mode shift.

13. Council supports the optimisation and maintenance of existing transport networks and the need for transport and investment to shape and support growth. This requires a strong relationship between land use and transport planning and our draft Sustainable Transport Strategy identifies this as a focus area. We recognise that the GPS on Land Transport and the developing Housing and Urban Development GPS (HUD GPS) will help provide a strategic direction across land use and transport policy.

14. However, we urge that in developing the HUD GPS there is recognition of the importance of, and it builds upon, work already undertaken and plans in place. This includes the Regional Growth Framework, District Plans, and the Housing and Business Assessments produced as a requirement of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity.

15. GPS 2021 appears to focus on better travel options for towns and cities including the implementation of mode shift plans for Wellington, and the shaping of urban form. Whilst Council understands that there should be some focus on metropolitan and high growth areas, this should not be at the expense of other areas. Some medium growth areas, for example, will have similar transport challenges to high growth areas and will require investment on rural roads and in rural areas.

16. Similarly, the GPS fails to recognise the interconnectivity between Kāpiti and Wellington. Kāpiti is the gateway to the Wellington Region and there is a regional impact of transport links and decisions. The new Expressways, for example, have made and will make travel between Kāpiti and Wellington more attractive and has contributed to the growth in Kāpiti. Reliance on the private car in towns and rural areas also contribute to the transport issues experienced in cities such as Wellington. This reliance is as a result of a lack of or substandard transport options for commuters travelling into the city. To be a project that supports the region rather than the City, LGWM should also consider and implement a package of transport measures, that extends outside the city boundary.

17. Kāpiti has seen significant growth in the last 30 years and our projections show this will continue. As a medium growth council, we have argued for improved public transport in the Kāpiti Coast District and consider that the demand for services and usage of our local road network will continue to increase in the future as a result of the new expressways, creating a number of challenges on our local networks.

18. Poor transport connectivity coupled with population growth and demographic change in Kāpiti is resulting in level of service issues, such as congestion and impacts on access to goods employment and education opportunities, services, and recreational facilities as well as parking problems.

19. We support the public transport operating fund for the metropolitan rail network in Wellington through the Public Transport Services Activity Class. Kāpiti has advocated for some time for improved bus services, and double tracking and electrification of the rail north of Waikanae and on to Palmerston North, to better serve communities such as Ōtaki in the north of our District. We will provide a more detailed response regarding Kāpiti in our submission on the Draft New Zealand Rail Plan. We consider that this will play a key role in ensuring social, economic, economic and cultural wellbeing of residents north of Waikanae by encouraging mode shift, reducing transport disadvantage, and provide better access to educational and economic opportunities.

20. GPS 2021 also needs to recognise that in some rural areas like many parts of the Kāpiti Coast, there are no footpaths, cycleways or public transport available, and significant investment would be needed to achieve modal shift.

21. The GPS 2021 appears to lack much of the detail and substance that was contained in GPS 2018. As an example, GPS 2018 included measures such as providing more transport choice for people with less or limited access to public transport, and recognised that integration between modes is important in encouraging mode shift.

22. GPS2018 also identified that the second stage GPS will consider interventions to significantly improve the affordability of public transport. This appears to be omitted from the GPS 2021 and is important for Kāpiti, where the changes in household composition predicted to take place over time is likely to increase the proportion of our population that is transport disadvantaged.

23. Our ageing population also have lower incomes, and along with other low income groups, can often be isolated and unable to access social and economic opportunities. Similarly, our ageing population often have specific mobility needs that require a range of responses, from planning improving the safety of our network and ensuring that their needs are met when delivering new infrastructure, for example, new pedestrian networks accommodating mobility aids.

24. Council considers that technological advances have the ability to enable virtual access and inform transport choice, as well as reduce the need to travel. This must be supported by organisational change and the infrastructure delivery, such as fibre optic broadband, and should be recognised up front in GPS 2021 instead of hidden in the ministerial expectations of Waka Kotahi.

Improving Freight Connections

25. Council supports the priority to improve freight connections but wonders whether this needs to be a strategic priority in its own right. We would not wish to see the importance of rail freight being at the expense of passenger rail services because it has been identified as a stand alone strategic priority.

26. With regards to resilience it appears as if this is the only strategic priority that considers the impacts of disruptive events. There is a need to ensure that the transport network can accommodate growth, changes in land use patterns, and the higher level of demands as a result of unexpected problems for everyone, not just freight.

Climate Change

27. Council supports the strategic priority on climate change. Climate change is exacerbating existing problems to the transport network as a result of increased flooding and ground water, greater storm intensity, increased landslips, sea level rise and warmer temperatures. These are pressing issues in coastal districts such as Kāpiti. Kāpiti Coast has declared a Climate Change emergency recognising and responding to the significant current and future increased impacts, including costs, associated with Climate Change, and it is considered that this should also be addressed through the GPS 2021.

28. In Kāpiti transport is also responsible over 50% of carbon dioxide emissions. Delivering schemes that ensure the reduction of emissions from transport through mode shift, public transport and better integrated transport and land use planning will be key to achieving a low carbon transport system. This is consistent with Council’s strategic outcomes of delivering a sustainable transport network.

29. The Climate Change Zero Carbon act requires the government to develop and implement policies for climate change adaptation, this should be recognised in the GPS 2021. Council would be keen to understand the funding relationship between the National Adaptation Plan and the National Land Transport Programme. This applies not only to the development of new infrastructure but also its continued maintenance and operation. Council is currently in the process of developing our Climate Change Strategy and consider that it will be necessary to engage and consult with local authorities on the National Adaptation Plan.

30. GPS 2021 also appears to not fully consider the significant harm that transport systems can impose on the environment. There is a range of effects on water, wildlife and soils, as well as on communities that have been split by roading infrastructure or that have been bypassed through the construction of new roads, that also need to be recognised and addressed.

31. Council also contends that, in addition to recognising that mode shift also needs to be supported outside of the major cities, that the GPS should also address the fact that changing to more environmentally friendly fuel types across New Zealand also requires supporting infrastructure. Charging points can very often require changes to the local and state highway roading network that needs to be provided for in this activity class.

32. There is also a role for technology in both improving access to transport services and reducing the need to travel. COVID-19 has changed our working patterns and has led to benefits such as decreasing fatalities and accidents on our roads, emissions, noise and pollution levels, and congestion, as well as improvements in air quality. Whilst travel levels are likely to approach pre COVID-19 levels as we recover, the benefits of technology in supporting climate change policies should also be recognised.

33. COVID-19 may also lead to the decentralising of services, which will also need to be supported by appropriate infrastructure.

Indicators for How Progress Will Be Measured

34. Council supports indicators as a way of measuring results but have the following comments:

· Who will be expected to measure these indicators?

· Indicator 3: What is a reasonable travel time?

· Indicator 4: How is frequent public transport service determined?

· Indicator 6: Does predictable journey time mean predictably good or predictably bad and how do you measure success?

Funding

35. Whilst Council supports the need for transport investment, it is concerned with the ability to meet the expected local share. Kāpiti Coast District has a growing elderly population on fixed incomes, and affordability is an ongoing and major issue when developing infrastructure programmes and budgets. We consider that a review of wider funding policies, including the Funding Assistance Rate (FAR), is necessary to address issues around constrained local share funding.

36. Council supports the increase in funding availability for local road maintenance as we consider this is required to ensure a high standard and safe network, however there appears to be little mention of this in the main body of GPS 2021.

37. Council, is disappointed that the funding for local road improvements has decreased significantly compared to GPS 2018. In 2022/23 this is proposed to decrease by over 50% and is comparatively disproportionate to the proposed reduction in spending on state highway improvements. Council considers that if there is an issue with previous years uptake of funding within this category then that is more likely a further indication of the financial pressures Local Authorities are under with regard to the ability to fund their share of any project.

38. Council requests further consideration of how the relationship between different funding options in the proposed funding toolkit can support local authorities in the delivery of local and regional schemes. Councils investment decisions are made within the context of funding constraints and our financial strategy has a focus on reducing the council’s debt.

39. There is significant pressure on council to keep rates and debt down, yet there is increasing need to invest in roading to support growth and outcomes sought in the GPS. For council to support the principles in the Government GPS the GPS also needs to recognise the need for support for council investment in these assets. It may be that further consideration needs to be given to a greater government contribution through a changed funding assistance rate for projects that help deliver on the GPS 2021 objectives.

40. The government should work with local government to review local government funding tools / financing options to ensure a sustainable long term approach to funding infrastructure. Part of this discussion needs to be the misalignment in timing of funding processes between the Local Government Act 2002 (Long Term Plan budgets) and the Land Transport Management Act 2003 (RLTP/NLTP).

41. We seek clarity on whether the Waka Kotahi board’s ability to approve a local share for projects such as State Highway improvements. Is this to enable local authorities to drive projects they would like to see on State Highways, or will it allow Waka Kotahi to require local authorities to pay a local share on a State Highway schemes. The latter would not be supported by Council.

General comments

42. GS 2021 identifies that it provides stronger guidance on what Government is seeking from land transport investments but lacks some of the detail in GPS 2018.

43. Council agrees with the need to better align transport and land use planning but notes that other legislative change may be required to realise this. The linkages between the Land Transport Management Act 2003 (LTMA), the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) are poor and pose a significant barrier to greater integration.

44. In particular, the RMA can often create inflexibilities in the District Plan development process that make changes difficult to achieve without a plan change process, which is resource intensive and time consuming.

45. Council also considers that the social and economic impacts of transport projects should also be recognised. Mackays to Peka Peka and Peka Peka to Ōtaki Expressways, for example, have contributed significantly to an increase in retail and tourism spending in Kāpiti (around 15% in Paraparaumu Beach). Transport plays a key role in contributing to the wellbeing of our communities, it influences the ability to move around and has an immense impact on people lives.

46. We consider that there is a need for a stronger focus on resilience as there are important risks and challenges that need to be addressed. In some cases, resilience and the ability to attain business as usual as quickly as possible after an event will mean that new infrastructure (which may be underutilised on a day-to-day basis) could be as important as mode shift.

47. We urge that the resilience work undertaken by Waka Kotahi is built upon, and look forward to the National Adaptation Plan.

Conclusion

48. Kāpiti Coast District Council supports the strategic priorities in the GPS 2021 but wish to raise a number comments on investment priorities including that Council:

· supports the need to better align transport and land use planning;

· is advocating for investment in public transport and electrification / double tracking to support communities in the north of the district;

· contends that there is a need to consider connections between modes and mode share plans outside of cities;

· considers that the funding toolkit should be developed with local authorities to ensure sustainability;

· wants to see transport affordability as promised in GPS2018 as this has not been fully addressed;

supports climate change priority but is keen to understand the relationship between National Adaptation Plan being developed and the National Land Transport Programme and considers need stronger resilience focus;

Yours sincerely

Wayne Maxwell

Chief Executive

Council Meeting Agenda

14 May 2020

MINUTES OF Kapiti Coast District Council
Council Meeting
HELD AT THE Council Chamber, Ground Floor, 175 Rimu Road, Paraparaumu
ON Thursday, 30 April 2020 AT 9.30am

PRESENT: Mayor K Gurunathan, Deputy Mayor Janet Holborow, Cr Angela Buswell, Cr James Cootes, Cr Jackie Elliott, Cr Gwynn Compton, Cr Jocelyn Prvanov, Cr Martin Halliday, Cr Sophie Handford, Cr Robert McCann, Cr Bernie Randall

IN ATTENDANCE: Wayne Maxwell, Natasha Tod, Sean Mallon, Janice McDougall, Mark de Haast, Angela Bell, Tim Power, Jacinta Straker, Leyanne Belcher, Kathy Spiers, Allison Law, Tanicka Mason, Grayson Rowse, Chris Pearce, Angela Bell, Susan Owens, Joe Dawson, Morag Taimalietane, Gary Simpson, Holly Ewens, Pei Shan Gan, Jill Griggs, Chris Papps

APOLOGIES: Nil

LEAVE OF Nil

ABSENCE:

1 Welcome

2 Council Blessing

The Mayor welcomed everyone to the meeting and Cr Handford read the Council blessing.

3 Apologies

Nil

4 Declarations of Interest Relating to Items on the Agenda

5 Public Speaking Time for Items Relating to the Agenda

Janice McDougall explained the reasons for public speaking time not being avaiable at this time. Cr Randall raised concerns on behalf of consituents.

Trevor Daniell from Grey Power spoke about the Kapiti Gateway, a responded to questions and comments from Crs Cootes and Elliott.

Alison Lash spoke to matters on climate change, and responded to questions Crs Buswell, Compton, Elliott, Holborow, Prvanov

6 Members’ Business

(a) Public Speaking Time Responses – Chief Executive responded regarding Kapiti Gateway,

Cr Halliday spoke in reply to Trevor Daniell and Alison Lash

Crs Compton, Elliott, Cootes, and Prvanov spoke in reply to Chief Executive’s comments

(b) Leave of Absence - nil

7 Mayor's Report

No report

8 Reports

8.1 Phase 1 - Sustain Community Support Package

Mark de Haast presented report as read, and answered questions from members.

An additional motion to allow carry-over of unspent budgets was added.

Resolution 2020/16

Moved: Cr Angela Buswell

Seconder: Cr Martin Halliday

1) The Council notes and receives this report.

2) The Council formally approves the Council’s commitment to a multi-stage (sustain, restore, rebuild) community support package approach to best support the Community to get through COVID-19.

3) The Council formally considers and approves the Phase 1 - Sustain Community Support Package, set out in paragraph 10 of this report, following an agreement in principle on Tuesday 7 April 2020.

4) The Council notes that the costs of the Phase 1 - Sustain Community Support package cannot be accurately determined.

5) The Council notes that staff will develop both the “restore” and “rebuild” community support packages for future consideration by the Council once the impacts of COVID-19 are better understood.

6) The Council approves the Community Boards to carry-over any unspent 2019/20 grants to 2020/21.

Carried

Meeting adjourned 11.20am

Meeting resumed 11.40am

8.2 2020/21 Draft Annual Plan

Mark de Haast presented report and answered questions from members.

The resolutions were taken individually

Resolution 2020/17

Moved: Cr James Cootes

Seconder: Deputy Mayor Janet Holborow

It is recommended that Council

109) Notes the risks outlined by Officers associated with the proposed rates reduction options described in paragraphs 42 to 63 of this report.

Carried

Resolution 2020/18

Moved: Cr James Cootes

Seconder: Deputy Mayor Janet Holborow

It is recommended that Council:

110) Approves the following changes for the draft 2020/21 Annual Plan:

110.1) Reduce the growth assumption rate.

110.2) Fund a community support package.

110.3) No increase to fees and charges above 2019/20 levels.

110.4) No increase to fixed and variable water rates.

110.5) Remove inflationary increases from operating budgets.

110.6) Recovery funding - to allow us to sustain and rebuild our community.

110.7) Remove additional depreciation funding in 2020/21 to continue closing the non-funded depreciation gap.

Carried

Abstention: Cr Randall

Resolution 2020/19

Moved: Cr James Cootes

Seconder: Deputy Mayor Janet Holborow

It is recommended that Council:

111) Approves the reductions to the fees stated in paragraph 51 of this report.

Carried

Resolution 2020/20

Moved: Cr James Cootes

Seconder: Deputy Mayor Janet Holborow

It is recommended that Council:

112) Notes that the fees and charges are scheduled to be presented to Council for adoption on 28 May 2020.

Carried

Resolution 2020/21

Moved: Cr James Cootes

Seconder: Deputy Mayor Janet Holborow

It is recommended that Council:

113) Agrees that there are no significant or material differences between the content of the Long Term Plan 2018-38 for the year 2020/21 and the draft Annual Plan for 2020/21.

Carried

Resolution 2020/22

Moved: Cr James Cootes

Seconder: Deputy Mayor Janet Holborow

It is recommended that Council:

114) Agrees that formal consultation is not required for the 2020/21 Annual Plan, in accordance with section 95(2A) of the LGA.

Carried

Resolution 2020/23

Moved: Cr James Cootes

Seconder: Deputy Mayor Janet Holborow

It is recommended that Council:

115) Approves the engagement approach to inform the community outlined in paragraphs 88 to 100 of this report.

Carried

Resolution 2020/24

Moved: Cr James Cootes

Seconder: Deputy Mayor Janet Holborow

It is recommended that Council:

116) Approves the delegation for finalising the Information Document to a panel comprising the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Cootes, Councillor Compton, and the Chief Executive.

Carried

Resolution 2020/25

Moved: Cr James Cootes

Seconder: Deputy Mayor Janet Holborow

It is recommended that Council:

117) Notes that the 2020/21 Annual Plan is scheduled to be presented to Council for adoption at a Council meeting on 25 June 2020.

Carried

Resolution 2020/26

Moved: Cr James Cootes

Seconder: Deputy Mayor Janet Holborow

It is recommended that Council:

118) Approves an average rates increase of 2.6% for the draft 2020/21 Annual to be finalised on the 25 June 2020.

Carried

Crs Compton and Randall voted Against

Resolution 2020/27

Moved: Cr James Cootes

Seconder: Deputy Mayor Janet Holborow

It is recommended that Council:

119) Notes that council staff will come back to elected members with an updated capital works program list.

Carried

Resolution 2020/28

Moved: Cr James Cootes

Seconder: Deputy Mayor Janet Holborow

It is recommended that Council:

120) Notes that the Chief Executive and senior leadership team will continue to look for further savings

Carried

Meeting adjourned at 2.20pm

Meeting resumed at 2.40pm

Motion

Resolution 2020/29

Moved: Deputy Mayor Janet Holborow

Seconder: Mayor K Gurunathan

That the Council extend its sitting beyond six hours to complete items 8.3, 9, 10, 11 and 12 on the agenda.

Carried

8.3 Housing Needs and Future Opportunities

Cr McCann introduced report. Janice MacDougall introduced Clint Fisher from The Property Group, spoke to the report, and answered questions from members.

Resolution 2020/30

Moved: Cr Robert McCann

Seconder: Cr Jackie Elliott

56) That the Council notes that the 2018-38 Long Term Plan (LTP) provided mandate and direction for the Council to consider its future role in housing.

57) That the Council notes and endorses the Housing Programme Assessment report, attached as Appendix One, and agrees to establish a housing programme based on the steps it identifies.

58) That the Council notes COVID-19 will impact the pace and scale of implementation and that the timeframes for delivery will be further considered through the development of a detailed work programme.

59) That the Council agrees that Council Officers should continue to progress Actions 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 10 and 14 from the Housing Programme Assessment as time and resource allows while a detailed housing work programme is developed.

60) That the Council note the comparison of the recommendations and actions from the Kāpiti Communities Housing Taskforce Report and Housing Programme Assessment report, as detailed in Appendix Three.

61) That the Council approve the Council Officer response to the recommendations made through the Taskforce Report Recommendations, as detailed in Appendix Three.

Carried

9 Confirmation of Minutes

9.1 Confirmation of minutes

Resolution 2020/31

Moved: Deputy Mayor Janet Holborow

Seconder: Cr Gwynn Compton

1) That the minutes of the Council meeting on 12 December 2019 be accepted as a true and accurate record of the meeting.

Carried

Resolution 2020/32

Moved: Deputy Mayor Janet Holborow

Seconder: Cr Sophie Handford

2) That the minutes of the Council meeting on 30 January 2020 be accepted as a true and accurate record of the meeting.

Carried

Resolution 2020/33

Moved: Cr Robert McCann

Seconder: Cr James Cootes

3) That the minutes of the Council meeting on 27 February 2020 be accepted as a true and accurate record of the meeting

Carried

10 Public Speaking Time

· Covering other items if required

· Public Speaking Time responses

11 Confirmation of Public Excluded Minutes

12 Public Excluded Reports

Resolution to Exclude the Public

Public Excluded Resolution 2020/34

Moved: Mayor K Gurunathan

Seconder: Cr James Cootes

That, pursuant to Section 48 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, the public now be excluded from the meeting for the reasons given below, while the following matters are considered.

The general subject matter of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Ground(s) under section 48 for the passing of this resolution

11.1 - Confirmation of Publicly Excluded Minutes

Section 7(2)(a) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons

Section 7(2)(h) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities

Section 7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

Section 48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

Carried

Resolution 2020/35

Moved: Cr James Cootes

Seconder: Mayor K Gurunathan

That the Council moves out of a public excluded meeting.

Carried

The Council meeting went into public excluded session at 3.40pm.

The Council came out of public excluded session at 3.54pm.

The Council meeting closed at 3.57pm.

...................................................

CHAIRPERSON


AGENDA Council Meeting
I hereby give notice that a Meeting of the Kapiti Coast District Council will be held on:
Date:	Thursday, 14 May 2020
Time:	9.30am
Location:	Online and livestreamed on YouTube
Wayne Maxwell Chief Executive

Size of protected area/feature (ha)	Rates Remission ($)
Up to 1.0 ha	$131
1.001 – 5.0 ha	$262
5.001 – 10.0 ha	$395
10.001 – 20.0 ha	$524
20.001 – 30.0 ha	$655
30.001 – 40.0 ha	$787
40.001 – 50.0 ha	$918
50.001 – 70.0 ha	$1050
70.001 – 100.0 ha	$1129
More than 100 ha	$1316

Mayor K Gurunathan	Chair
Deputy Mayor Janet Holborow	Deputy
Cr Angela Buswell	Member
Cr James Cootes	Member
Cr Jackie Elliott	Member
Cr Gwynn Compton	Member
Cr Jocelyn Prvanov	Member
Cr Martin Halliday	Member
Cr Sophie Handford	Member
Cr Robert McCann	Member
Cr Bernie Randall	Member