Agenda of Strategy and Operations Committee Meeting

Strategy and Operations Committee Meeting Agenda

21 October 2021

8.1 Otaihanga Site Use for Resource Recovery

Author: Ruth Clarke, Waste Projects Manager

Authoriser: Sean Mallon, Group Manager Infrastructure Services

Purpose of Report

1 This report seeks formal approval to use the Otaihanga closed landfill (landfill) site to establish new and improved resource recovery options.

Delegation

2 The Strategy and Operations Committee have the delegation to approve this report as outlined in the Governance Structure and Delegations Section B.1 “overviewing strategic programme”.

Background

3 The final capping project of the landfill commenced in 2012/13. This is expected to be completed in the 2022/23 year, subject to the receipt of suitable materials for the final works.

4 In August 2020, Council was briefed by the Sustainability & Resilience Manager on further steps and actions planned for the landfill site, following the final report and recommendations of the Waste Minimisation Taskforce (WMTF) from December 2019. In that briefing, the current and further future use of the site for the purposes of resource recovery (as recommended by the WMTF) was discussed.

5 The future use of the parts of the site landfill which have now been capped is limited for the following reasons:

· The cap needs ongoing maintenance as areas subside due to decomposition of waste – any activities on the capped area have the potential to jeopardise the integrity of the cap.

· There are obligations to meet resource consent conditions for leachate monitoring and treatment within the site’s footprint, requiring a well-maintained cap and well-functioning wetland/treatment areas around the perimeter.

· There is a likely future requirement for additional leachate treatment infrastructure from Greater Wellington Regional Council (budget included in year 5 in LTP 2021).

· The Otaihanga landfill is permanently listed on the regional hazardous sites register.

· The site would be of significant value as a temporary emergency disposal site in case of a civil defence emergency (local debris disposal plan).

6 Based on these restrictions recreational use is not recommended as it impacts on Council’s ability to meet the on-going maintenance needs and regulatory requirements.

7 It is recommended to use the site and adjoining areas to establish infrastructure to improve waste diversion and resource recovery.

considerations

8 Following on from the Waste Minimisation Briefing in August 2020, discussions and collaborations were initiated with various parties to explore and develop improved local resource recovery options, including:

· Two Construction & Demolition waste -related working groups were formed with representatives from business, community and local government.

· Council staff provide ongoing support for food waste diversion and composting.

· Council staff support the ongoing development of Zero Waste Otaki (wood recovery).

· A Construction & Demolition (C&D) waste resource recovery trial (at Otaihanga) is underway.

· Council staff have worked jointly with Porirua City Council on a C&D report.

Proposed Use

9 It’s proposed to develop the site over time as opportunities arise for resource recovery and waste minimisation purposes.

10 Because the site is Council-owned, Council will encourage and support the development of initiatives with land leases, particularly for pilot initiatives, that otherwise might not be able to take place.

11 The current site activity and the planned future site development for a 10-year transition period is shown in the table below, with resource recovery related activity shaded green and unrelated activity shaded blue. The site areas have been numbered and mapped and are shown following the table.

Site area	Current use	10-year transition
1.	Greenwaste composting	Greenwaste composting
2.	Otaihanga Resource Recovery Facility ( transfer station)	Otaihanga Resource Recovery Facility (transfer station)
3.	Business land lease	Extended resource recovery per 1 July 2022
4.	Existing land leases related to resource recovery	Consider renewal of leases related to resource recovery
5.	Existing land leases unrelated to resource recovery	Transition to leases for resource recovery initiatives if opportunities arise
6.	Top of landfill - passive use	Emergency use – debris disposal

12 In the immediate future, the development is focussed on two sites; refer to the image below

12.1 Site A: The existing Otaihanga Resource Recovery Facility (No. 2. above)

12.2 Site B: The hardstand yard in the north-west corner of the site (No. 3. above)

13 Formal approval is sought from Council to endorse the planned land use of the Otaihanga landfill site and adjoining sites for the purposes of (waste) resource recovery as set out above.

Policy considerations

14 Establishing improved resource recovery options delivers on a regional action in the Wellington Waste Minimisation and Management Plan (WMMP) 2017-2023, which is to make sure we have the facilities to divert more material like construction and demolition waste, food and/or biosolids, and other organic waste.

15 Two local infrastructure actions from the Kāpiti Action Plan in the Wellington WMMP 2017 would also be delivered upon. These include increasing waste diversion from transfer stations by working with operators to increase diversion and supporting the establishment of infrastructure and enable recovery of specific materials.

16 Additional diversion facilities (especially for Construction & Demolition waste) would strongly support progress towards Council’s goal of a 30% reduction in waste to landfill by 2026.

17 This proposed use would enable Council to achieve one of the four key recommendations of the Waste Minimisation Taskforce, being that Council establishes a waste diversion facility at the Otaihanga site with an initial focus on C&D waste.

Legal considerations

18 The Wellington WMMP is written in accordance with the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 which requires territorial authorities to provide effective and efficient waste management.

19 Under the Solid Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2021 Section 14 Construction Site and Demolition Waste, Council may make a control to require any person that is applying for a building consent for building work of a certain estimated value or higher to submit a construction site and demolition waste management and minimisation plan to the Council for approval prior to the commencement of any building work. The continued infrastructure development at Otaihanga will support the implementation of such a control.

20 It is intended to put this control in place once local diversion options have been put in place to enable implementation of Section 14 of the Bylaw.

Financial considerations

21 Budget is allocated in the LTP 2021 for the development of the site as follows:

21.1 2021/22 $57,240 for site design

21.2 2022/23 $533,191 for site redevelopment construction

22 Otaihanga site leases have recently been re-valued and have been increased as a result. Land lease revenue is a major contributor for the Solid Waste activity, together with Waste Levy income from the Ministry for the Environment.

Tāngata whenua considerations

23 Iwi were represented on the Waste Minimisation Taskforce which recommended the development of the Otaihanga site for resource recovery infrastructure.

24 The Waste Minimisation team will continue to engage with mana whenua.

Strategic considerations

25 The development of the Otaihanga site for resource recovery contributes to two of Council’s ten-year outcomes.

26 Community Outcome: Our communities are resilient, safe healthy, and connected. Everyone has a sense of belonging and can access the resources and services they need.

27 Developing a greater range of local infrastructure for resource recovery enables a direct contribution through:

· improved access to waste disposal services

· greater participation by the public in waste minimisation

· local business opportunities for resource recovery.

28 Community Outcome: Our natural environment is restored and enhanced as we transition to a low-carbon future transition.

29 A direct contribution will be enabled through:

· a reduction in waste to landfill leads to a reduction in emissions from landfilling, specifically from organic waste which emits methane, a potent greenhouse gas

· a reduction in transport emissions as local solutions are developed

· enhanced resource recovery encourages a circular economy.

Significance and Engagement

Significance policy

30 This matter has a low level of significance under Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Consultation already undertaken

31 The budget for the improved resource recovery infrastructure is included in the LTP 2021 and was consulted on as part of the LTP consultation.

Engagement planning

32 Engagement is through a collaborative approach with business and community partners. Discussions are taking place with various parties related to the development of resource recovery options.

Publicity

33 No publicity is required at this stage but will be appropriate when the site development is completed.

Other Considerations

There are no other considerations.

Recommendations

34 That the Council approves the use and further development of the Otaihanga closed landfill site as set out in report “Otaihanga Site Use for Resource Recovery”

Appendices

Nil

Strategy and Operations Committee Meeting Agenda

21 October 2021

8.2 Omnibus Plan Changes to the District Plan

Author: Laura Willoughby, Senior Policy Planner

Authoriser: Natasha Tod, Group Manager Strategy, Growth and Recovery

Purpose of Report

1 To seek endorsement to initiate further research and consultation on draft wording of a package of plan changes to the Operative District Plan 2021 (District Plan).

2 This package of district plan changes seeks to:

2.1 respond to new central government directives by removing areas of duplication and filling gaps that have been created;

2.2 honour review commitments contained within the district plan, such as a 5 yearly review of development incentives;

2.3 address a number of implementation issues that have become apparent;

2.4 keep the open space zoning of land up to date; and

2.5 investigate potential additions and amendments to sites of significance to mana whenua.

Delegation

3 The Strategy and Operations Committee has delegation for all decision-making in relation to the preparation of district plan changes.

BACKGROUND

4 In Long Term Plan 2021 – 2041 (LTP) we committed to a rolling review programme of changes to the District Plan. This includes an urban development plan change to be notified in 2022, which will respond to the National Policy Statement for Urban Development 2020 (NPS-UD) and Council’s own Growth Strategy. Approval will be sought to consult on draft wording of the urban development plan change following the completion of the Growth Strategy.

5 Prior to this the first plan change to the District Plan would be an omnibus style of plan change. These types of plan changes typically address a variety of topics that seek to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the district plan, including important ad-hoc resource management issues that do not fit into any other district plan changes being prepared. This one also sets some groundwork for some change required by the NPS-UD.

6 At a national level, a couple of significant changes have recently been rolled out by central government that have implications for the district plan which will be responded to through the omnibus package. These are:

6.1 the removal of district plan provisions requiring minimum numbers of car parks by 20 February 2022 (required by the NPS-UD 2020); and

6.2 changes to the Building Code Acceptable Solution B1/AS1 for building on liquefaction-prone land (these changes to the Building Code take effect from 29 November 2021).

7 The timeframes to comply with the NPS-UD requirements and to remove unnecessary duplication between the district plan and the Building Code means they should be included in this first package of plan changes.

8 At a local level, monitoring of the district plan occurs via feedback from plan users. A review of issues has been undertaken with the problems/issues analysed and key issues identified for progressing in this first plan change package. The focus has been on fixing implementation issues and keeping the plan up to date.

Issues and Options

Issues

Accessible car parking

9 The NPS-UD requirement for removal of all non-accessible minimum car parking requirements will mean that the district plan provisions for accessible parking will no longer function. This is because the accessible parking requirements are completely reliant on minimum car parking being required for specific land use activities.

10 The NPS-UD separates accessible parking from other car parks, stating that local authorities need not remove provisions for accessible parking from district plans. To make this work, plan change 1A proposes that new provisions for accessible parking are drafted to reflect the current levels of required accessible parking spaces, and also ensure that these become stand-alone provisions within the structure of the district plan. A new provision to require accessible parking on sites where multi-unit residential development (4 units and over) is also proposed as this has been identified as a gap in the district plan.

11 Similar work is being undertaken by other Councils to ensure that workable accessible parking requirements are retained in their district plans.

Liquefaction risk management for new buildings

12 The district plan currently manages liquefaction risk through two triggers:

a. at the time of subdivision of land; and

b. construction of high-occupancy buildings on peat or sandy soils.

13 From 29 November 2021 changes to the Building Code Acceptable Solution B1/AS1 will require specific design of new buildings to take into account liquefaction risk. This will mean the district plan’s policy and rule managing building development on liquefaction-prone land will be duplicated in the new B1/AS1 requirements. This will create jurisdictional overlap between the RMA and the Building Code, potential confusion and administrative inefficiency.

14 To address this, plan change 1B would remove a district plan rule requiring resource consent for construction of multi-occupancy buildings on peat or sandy soils. The district plan will still retain control over the significant risks associated with subdivision of liquefaction-prone land through requiring a resource consent at the time of subdivision.

Cycle parking

15 The NPS-UD requirement for removal of minimum car parking spaces for development sites will mean the district plan provisions for cycle parking no longer work. This is because the cycle parking requirements in the district plan are currently in the same rule as the accessible parking requirements, which are reliant on a minimum number of car parks being required by the district plan. Therefore, if a developer chooses to not provide any car parks on a site, then the need to provide cycle parking will also no longer be triggered in the district plan.

16 Plan change 1C proposes to review the rates of cycle parks required by different land use activities within the district plan and ensure that up-to-date best practice and guidance is being followed. Any new provisions for cycle parking would then be drafted to ensure that cycle parking provisions work effectively within the structure of the district plan.

Transport network hierarchy changes

17 The district plan uses a transport network hierarchy to differentiate roads by function. Roads at the top of the hierarchy are generally arterial routes that cater for through traffic, including freight and often have higher traffic volumes and speeds. The management of some activities for road safety purposes are dependent on the status of the road under the transport network hierarchy, such as allowing reversing from a site onto a road. Roads at the lower end of the hierarchy tend to have a local access function with lower traffic volumes or speeds, and as a result offer higher levels of safety for access to sites compared to higher volume or speed roads in the transport network hierarchy.

18 Arawhata Road is currently classified as a Neighbourhood Access Routes/Local Road within the ODP, which is at the lowest level in the transport network hierarchy. Arawhata Road then flows onto Mazengarb Road which is identified as the next level of the hierarchy as a Local Community Connector Road. Local Community Connector Roads are defined as larger urban roads linking local roads to the connector network.

19 Given the increasing traffic volumes that Arawhata Road has experienced, Council’s transport experts have advised that Arawhata Road should align with Mazengarb Road in the transport hierarchy and change to a Local Community Connector Road. This consistency aligns with the ‘movement’ categories identified when applying NZTA’s One Network Road Classification to these roads. Aligning the categories for the two roads will mean slightly more stringent controls for any new development on sites that rely on Arawhata Road for vehicle access. The main change would be that if any new development wants to provide car parking on these sites then vehicle manoeuvring will need to be designed so that a vehicle can turn around within the site, and no longer be able to reverse onto Arawhata Road. Plan change 1D is proposed to reclassify Arawhata Road in the District Plan transport network hierarchy map to a Local Community Connector Road.

20 Plan Change 1D also intends to correct an error that has been identified by Council’s Roading Network Planner on the transport network hierarchy map. The 1999 version of the district plan shows Tutanekai Street as a community connector road, and Ventnor Drive as a notional road. When the 2012 Proposed District Plan (PDP) was drafted into three replacement transport network hierarchy maps the location of the community connector was erroneously moved from Tutanekai Street to Ventnor Drive, and the notional road was removed. At the same time, it appears the Tutanekai Street status as a community connector was removed, so it is now shown as a local road. This appears to have been human error and requires correction through a plan change process.

21 Plan change 1D proposes to remove the Local Community Connector Road status from Ventnor Drive (reverting Ventnor Drive to Neighbourhood Access Routes/Local Road status), and to reinstate Local Community Connector Road status to Tutanekai Street on the Operative District Plan 2021 transport hierarchy map.

Review and amend development incentive provisions

22 Development incentive provisions were established for environmental sustainability goals. The development incentives guidelines provide the following reason why they are included in the District Plan:

The Council is keen to support those landowners and land developers who are prepared to go ‘above and beyond’ standard levels of resource management practice in carrying out activities. The Council considers that such actions should be recognised with additional development rights. While the Council already provides some non-regulatory financial incentives for some activities (e.g. heritage fund, rates relief etc), the Council considers there is scope to use regulatory-based incentives as well.^{^[1]}

23 As part of the 2012 Proposed District Plan the Council incorporated incentives for environmental sustainability likely to create a net benefit for the environment in the following three focus areas:

(a) biodiversity,

(b) water quality, and

24 The incentives/rewards potentially available for qualifying development include:

(a) additional subdivision lots,

(b) creation of additional residential unit on a site,

(d) additional building height,

(e) reduced on-site car parking requirements.

25 Under the RMA, these additional development rights could not simply be granted via the District Plan. An assessment on the effects on the environment and any affected parties is still required, on a site-by-site basis, through the resource consent process. This means the proposed use of the development incentive provisions does not guarantee an applicant will be granted resource consent.

26 The District Plan provisions were therefore largely written as guidance within the District Plan to signal these rewards are appropriate for development practice that went ‘above and beyond’ in the three focus areas. A relatively complicated points-based system was included in the guidelines for development incentive activities which could be accumulated to gain enough points to qualify for applying for a resource consent under the development incentive rules.

27 The following legal and practical issues have since been identified with this approach:

27.1 The two-step process, i.e. informally approving works to be done now with a future reward to be granted via a resource consent process three years later. This sets up an expectation of granting an additional development right through an informal pre-approval process that is not subject to the RMA. This mechanism is beyond the powers of the RMA.

27.2 The guidelines seek to influence notification decisions under s.93 and s.94 of the RMA. The guidelines state that when a resource consent for the additional development right is considered “The activity will generally be non-notified. It is expected that the involvement of third parties in these types of applications will however be limited, as reducing the likelihood of third party involvement was a consideration in selecting the type of incentives to be offered in the Plan.” This part of the guideline is in conflict with provisions of the RMA.

27.3 The provisions which offer development incentives in exchange for installation of energy efficient appliances in houses are dated and open to interpretation. There is no baseline target on energy efficiency ratings appliances must meet to qualify for a development incentive. Since technological improvements have been made in the energy efficiency of appliances since 2012, development incentives under the guidelines may be available for appliances which are now standard technology in 2021. This fails to reward those going ‘above and beyond’. Another challenge with these provisions is the difficult in monitoring the on-going use of ‘energy efficient’ appliances beyond the time which resource consent is granted.

28 The development incentive provisions were first drafted and notified in 2012, with appeals resolved in 2019. During this time, several National Policy Statements have been produced by the Ministry for the Environment, including the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020, National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management 2020. Further National Policy Statements for Indigenous Biodiversity and Highly Productive Land are in development. These have (or are expected to have) an impact on the current development incentive provisions, e.g. the requirement to remove minimum car parking requirements eliminates one of the rewards currently used an incentive in the guidelines.

29 With the focus of existing and emerging national direction on urban development, housing affordability, and the protection of highly productive land, wetlands and indigenous biodiversity, it is appropriate timing to review the development incentive provisions to ensure they are efficient, effective, and not contrary to existing and emerging national direction.

30 In addition, there are also specific drivers for this review arising from the District Plan itself (section 3.4.5 of the development incentive guidelines), which anticipates a 5 yearly review of the development incentive programme; the identification of implementation matters which came to light during the appeals process on the then Proposed District Plan in 2019, and the identification of additional implementation issues since the District Plan became operative. Appendix A indicates the combined list matters to be considered in response to these drivers.

31 As part of this work, it is proposed to establish a stakeholder working group to test and assist in informing draft amendments to the development incentive provisions before bringing draft changes back to the Council seeking approval to consult the wider community on draft amendments to be included under Plan Change 1E.

32 It is important to note the review of the development incentive guidelines is focused on environmental outcomes. A separate piece of work will consider the use of incentives to support housing choice and affordability. District Plan change work is already underway to give effect to the NPS-UD, and it is that workstream which will comprehensively address housing issues.

Indigenous vegetation modification

33 The district plan generally provides for the trimming or modification of indigenous vegetation as a permitted activity however resource consent is required in some zones if modification of indigenous vegetation occurs:

33.1 Within an ecological site; or

33.2 On key indigenous trees; or

33.3 On a rare and threatened vegetation species; or

33.4 In or within 20 metres of a waterbody or the coastal marine area where it not within the urban environment, (excluding planted vegetation).

34 A controlled activity rule requires a resource consent to be obtained for modification of indigenous vegetation that is damaged, dead or dying, or has sustained storm damage, or is fatally diseased in the above circumstances. The rule requires that an assessment is made around whether the indigenous vegetation is no longer ‘independently viable’ or presents a risk of serious harm to people or property or risks damaging surrounding protected vegetation. An assessment must also be put in writing by an arborist who has attained the New Zealand Qualifications Authority National Certificate in Arboriculture Level 4 or equivalent qualification. The applicant can also apply under this rule if they can demonstrate that the indigenous vegetation was not planted for ecological restoration or enhancement purposes or as a biodiversity offset. Controlled activity resource consents must be granted by the Council if all the requirements of the rule are met.

35 Issues have been identified through implementation of this rule including the scale of indigenous vegetation that can be modified, ambiguity around the term ‘independently viable’, and the absence of a technical ecological assessment (from an ecologist) in ecological sites. As currently worded, modification on vulnerable remnant indigenous vegetation can be carried out without an ecological assessment, with Council unable to refuse the application given its controlled activity status, potentially resulting in significant adverse ecological effects. Another shortfall in the current rule is the inability of the Council to take into account the values and views of tangata whenua, despite tangata whenua values being one of the key values used in the identification and protection of significant indigenous vegetation under the Regional Policy Statement^{^[2]}.

36 Plan change 1F seeks to review the modification of indigenous vegetation provisions within the district plan. This will provide greater clarity around the need to provide for public safety, to consider tangata whenua values and also to avoid where practicable the modification of significant indigenous vegetation, in particular for all indigenous vegetation within ecological sites.

New buildings on Wāhanga Rima waahi tapu sites

37 Waahi tapu sites are identified within Schedule 9 of the district plan, where they are assigned a category of significance ranging from Wāhanga Tahi (urupā and parekura) through to Wāhanga Rima (Waahi Tapu Area).

38 The Wāhanga Rima category explains key development threats for waahi tapu areas as:

(a) new buildings,

(b) large scale land disturbance,

(d) subdivision.

39 The desired level of protection stated in the district plan for Wāhanga Rima areas is: Moderate – rules intended to allow for a level of development to occur but retain controls on volume of land disturbance. However, there are tighter controls on the construction of new buildings and subdivision within the waahi tapu is actively discouraged to avoid ‘division’ of related features.

40 The Wāhanga Rima classification currently applies to two waahi tapu areas in Waikanae Beach: Taewapirau waahi tupuna and Takamore Waahi Tapu Area. This category could also be extended to other areas in the district that may be identified as waahi tapu areas in the future.

41 Implementation of the district plan has revealed that there are issues with the current controlled activity status of the rule that seeks to control new buildings on Wāhanga Rima waahi tapu sites. A resource consent is required, however as noted above in respect to the modified indigenous vegetation issue, controlled activities cannot be declined a resource consent and instead conditions attached to resource consents are deemed to be appropriate in order to manage adverse environmental effects.

42 Appropriately, consultation with mana whenua has been undertaken as part of resource consent application assessments for new buildings to be located on Wāhanga Rima waahi tapu areas. Frustration has been expressed by mana whenua that under the District Plan at present there is only limited ability to successfully apply conditions to a consent in order to manage concerns around waahi tapu values. The presumption that any new building will be granted resource consent on waahi tapu areas (subject to conditions) appears to be in conflict with the desired levels of protection for these areas, as stated above. Plan change 1G seeks to address this misalignment of the district plan rule to better achieve the desired policy intent.

Additional and amended waahi tapu areas

43 The District Plan recognises historic heritage that contributes to an understanding and appreciation of the district’s history and culture. Waahi tapu areas are identified within Schedule 9 of the district plan as part of the ongoing and long-term management and protection of waahi tapu in the district.

44 Heritage is a matter of national importance under the RMA, and the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) are required to be taken into account when exercising functions and powers under the Act. In 2020, the Waitangi Tribunal released a pre-publication report to address claims about the location of the Kārewarewa urupā in Waikanae Beach (report attached in Appendix B of this report). The Waitangi Tribunal confirmed that the traditional, historical, and archaeological evidence is clear that the area identified within the report was an urupā. Plan Change 1I proposes to work with mana whenua and affected property owners to recognise and protect this urupā through proposing a new waahi tapu listing within the district plan.

45 Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga also has an interest in the district’s heritage as New Zealand’s national historic heritage agency, an autonomous crown entity that seeks to identify, protect and promote heritage. The Māori Heritage Council assists Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga in developing and reflecting a bicultural view in the exercise of its powers and functions and makes decisions about the registration/entries on the New Zealand Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero of wāhi tapu, wāhi tapu areas, and wāhi tūpuna.

46 The Māori Heritage Council has approved two waahi tapu registrations in Kāpiti, being:

46.1 Te Rua Tūpāpaku o Te Rangihiroa, Waiorua Bay, Kāpiti Island - List Number 9792; Date of Effect: 4th September 2017. A 5 metre buffer area around the marked grave of Te Rangihiroa.

46.2 Review of Takamore Wahi Tapu Area, Waikanae Beach, Kāpiti, Date of Effect: 4th August 1995, Date of Review Decision: 25th August 2011, Date of High Court Decision on Judicial Review: 6th September 2013, Date of Court of Appeal Decision: 24th February 2015. List number: 7263.

47 Plan Change 1H seeks to add Te Rua Tūpāpaku o Te Rangihiroa, Waiorua Bay, Kāpiti Island waahi tapu area to the district plan, based on the registration report prepared by Heritage NZ (attached in Appendix C of this report).

48 Plan Change 1J seeks to amend the area of the existing Takamore Wāhi Tapu Area (Schedule 9, District Plan ID: W4) to align with Heritage NZ’s extent of registration, based on the review of registration report prepared by Heritage NZ (attached in Appendix D of this report), noting that the registration decision making process was upheld by the High Court and Court of Appeal decisions.

Alignment with national regulations for electoral advertisements

49 The Electoral (Advertisements of a Specific Kind) Regulations 2005 seeks to provide national consistency for candidates and political parties around size, shape, colour, illumination and size and line spacing for electoral advertisements (such as posters and billboards) during the 9 weeks before polling day of a general election.

50 The District Plan is not currently aligned with these regulations e.g., it allows a smaller signage area for both local and national election signage. This leads to confusion around signage size and requirements at election times, with the regulations overriding district plan requirements around the national election 9-week timeframe. Proposed plan change 1K seeks to review the current election signs rule for both local body and national elections to achieve greater alignment.

Update to Open Space zones

51 The District Plan contains areas zoned Open Space to identify and retain Council-owned land for natural environment, local parks and recreation purposes. As more residential development occurs in the district, additional areas are sometimes identified within a development for an open space purpose and land can be gifted to the Council for this purpose at the time of residential subdivision. To keep the District Plan up to date, and to ensure uses being carried out on newly created areas of open space are covered by the District Plan provisions, it is necessary to periodically review these changes and as necessary update zonings.

52 Plan change 1L seeks to update fourteen areas within the district to reflect their new open space function and assign them a relevant Open Space Zone. Appendix E of this report outlines the sites to be considered under this plan change.

53 As part of the update review of open space sites, two sites have been identified within the current Open Space zone but appear to be incorrectly categorised within the Open Space Zone district plan framework. These sites are:

(1) Jim Cooke Memorial Park, Waikanae - Toilet block/car park – current zoning is ‘Natural Open Space Zone’, and it is proposed to reclassify this to ‘Open Space Zone (Recreation Precinct)’ to better reflect its associated sports field use.

(2) Maclean Park, Paraparaumu Beach – current zoning is ‘Natural Open Space Zone’, and it is proposed to reclassify this to ‘Open Space Zone (Recreation Precinct)’ to better reflect the ‘active and passive recreation’^{^[3]} use of the park.

54 The reclassification of these two areas will need to be assessed and the implications of applying different plan provisions considered for each site.

Bylaw and district plan alignment

55 In 2021, two bylaws have been consulted on that have the potential to overlap with current district plan provisions, these are:

(1) Kāpiti Coast District Council Keeping of Animals, Bees and Poultry Bylaw 2021, and

(2) Kāpiti Coast District Council Traffic Bylaw (2010)/Proposed Traffic Bylaw 2021

56 The recent adoption of the Kapiti Coast District Council Keeping of Animals, Bees and Poultry Bylaw 2021 means that work can now commence on removing any duplicated provisions (i.e., animal welfare requirements) from the district plan. Further assessment of potential changes to the district plan will be undertaken as the Proposed Traffic Bylaw 2021 progresses through the consultation process. Plan change 1M will include amendments to the district plan (if necessary) to avoid duplication of regulation in these areas.

Considerations

Policy considerations

57 The following Council policies have been considered when assembling the proposed plan change package:

· Kāpiti Coast District Council Open Space Strategy (2012)

· Kāpiti Coast District Council Sustainable Transport Strategy (2020)

· Kāpiti Coast District Council Maclean Park Te Uruhi Reserve Management Plan (2017)

· Kāpiti Coast District Council Keeping of Animals, Bees and Poultry Bylaw (2021)

· Kāpiti Coast District Council Traffic Bylaw (2010) and Proposed Traffic Bylaw (2021)

Legal considerations

58 The package of plan changes will go through the specific evaluation of benefits and costs, consultation and public notification processes as required by Schedule 1 of the RMA. The package of plan changes will be brought back to Council for approval to formally publicly notify and consult after the investigation work signalled in this report is carried out and following consultation on draft provisions.

Financial considerations

59 The LTP recognised this package of plan changes as part of the activities and services for districtwide planning and regulatory services. The costs of preparing this package of plan changes for notification to the wider public have already been factored into the operating expenses of the district planning team.

60 There are no additional financial considerations resulting from the preparation of this plan change package for public notification purposes.

Tāngata whenua considerations

61 There are a number of specific matters addressed by this package of plan changes which the District Planning team is aware are of particular interest to tangata whenua. These are, but may not be limited to the following matters:

61.1 provisions which manage the modification of indigenous vegetation (plan change 1F);

61.2 provisions which manage new buildings on Wāhanga Rima-classified waahi tapu sites (plan change 1G);

61.3 additional and amended waahi tapu areas (plan changes 1H, 1I and 1J);

61.4 updates to open space zoning (plan change 1L).

62 The District Planning team has been engaging with mana whenua on this package of plan changes, and this will continue as the work progresses.

63 It is also important to note the RMA has specific requirements the Council must follow for consultation with iwi authorities when preparing district plan changes. The District Planning team will ensure these requirements are met as part of the development of this package of plan changes.

Strategic considerations

64 This package of plan changes contributes to the following Long Term Plan community outcomes:

64.1 Mana Whenua and Council have a mutually mana-enhancing partnership. All of the proposed plan changes will be developed in partnership with mana whenua.

64.2 The vision from tāngata whenua (Te Āti Awa ki Whakarongotai, Ngāti Raukawa and Ngāti Toa Rangatira, including whānau and hapū) in the LTP is based on four main principles. Principle 4 - Tino Rangatiratanga, includes a vision that people know about the Maori names for the original landscape, heritage and waahi tapu. Plan Changes 1G-J in particular support this vision in that Maori heritage and waahi tapu is further enhanced within the district plan. Principle 4 also starts that tāngata whenua play a strong/central role in district planning and this package of plan changes will be progressed in partnership with tāngata whenua to further support that vision.

64.3 Our communities are resilient, safe, healthy and connected. Everyone has a sense of belonging and can access the resources and services they need. The plan changes proposed for accessible parking, cycle parking and changes to the transport network hierarchy will directly support this outcome.

64.4 Our natural environment is restored and enhanced as we transition to a low-carbon future. Plan Changes proposed around incentivising outstanding biodiversity outcomes and reviewing rules on modifying indigenous vegetation on sensitive sites will assist the restoration and enhancement of our natural environment.

65 The LTP also requires that Council maintains an up-to-date and effective district plan and that Council retains an up-to-date and fit-for-purpose suite of policies and bylaws. Plan changes 1K to 1M, in particular, will support this requirement.

Significance and Engagement

Significance and Engagement policy

66 The Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy does not apply to the engagement or consultation processes that are required under the RMA.

67 Consultation on draft provisions will be carried out with relevant stakeholders in accordance with Clauses 3 and 4A of Schedule 1 of the RMA as this work progresses.

68 Formal consultation will be undertaken as prescribed by Schedule 1 of the RMA and public notification of the proposed plan changes will occur in accordance with the requirements of the Act. This future step will require the Council to approve the proposed finalised package of plan changes for notification. Approval for this step of the plan change process is not being sought at this stage, but will be requested of the Strategy and Operations Committee in early 2022.

Conclusion

69 This report has outlined issues identified with the district plan that the omnibus package of plan changes seeks to address in order maintain an efficient and effective district plan, as required by the RMA and the LTP.

70 The Strategy and Operations Committee is asked to endorse these district plan issues and agree that a package of plan changes should be prepared for draft consultation purposes on these issues.

71 Consultation will be required with iwi partners and other key parties as part of this plan change preparation process.

72 Council officers will seek further approval from the Committee to endorse the final drafted plan change content for plan changes 1(A-M) in early 2022 and will also seek approval to commence formal public notification of the plan changes at the same time.

Recommendations

73 That the Strategy and Operations Committee endorses the following package of omnibus plan changes to be prepared for the Operative District Plan 2021:

Plan Change 1A – Revise accessible parking provisions for new developments.

Plan Change 1B – Remove liquefaction risk management provisions for new buildings to avoid duplication with the Building Code.

Plan Change 1C – Revise cycle parking provisions for new developments.

Plan Change 1D – Reclassify Arawhata Road, Paraparaumu as a Local Community Connector Route on the transport network hierarchy maps and fix an error on the transport network hierarchy maps by relocating an existing Local Community Connector Route from Ventnor Drive, Paraparaumu to Tutanekai Street, Paraparaumu.

Plan Change 1E – Review and amend development incentive provisions.

Plan Change 1F - Revise modification of indigenous vegetation provisions.

Plan Change 1G - Revise plan provisions for new buildings on Wāhanga Rima waahi tapu sites.

Plan Change 1H - New waahi tapu listing for Te Rua Tūpāpaku o Te Rangihiroa, Waiorua Bay, Kāpiti Island to align with recent Heritage NZ listing (list number: 9792).

Plan Change 1I – New waahi tapu listing for Kārewarewa Urupā in Waikanae Beach, to align with the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal report: Kārewarewa Urupā Report, dated 25 May 2020.

Plan Change 1J – Amend area of the existing Takamore Wāhi Tapu Area (Schedule 9, District Plan ID: W4) to align with Heritage NZ’s extent of registration (list number: 7263).

Plan Change 1K – Amend signage provisions to align with election advertisement requirements of the Electoral (Advertisements of a Specific Kind) Regulations 2005.

Plan Change 1L – Re-zone fourteen Council-owned sites from General Residential Zone to Open Space and Recreation Zones, and reassign two Council-owned sites from Natural Open Space Zone to Open Space Zone (Recreation Precinct).

Plan Change 1M – Update plan provisions to remove duplication with any Bylaws amended in 2021.

74 The Strategy and Operations Committee approves the initiation of undertaking the consultation required to draft/prepare amended district plan provisions in accordance with Clauses 3 and 4A of Schedule 1 of the RMA.

75 The Strategy and Operations Committee notes that final drafts of all material prepared for plan changes 1(A-M) will need to be further endorsed by the Committee and approval will be sought to undertake formal public notification of the plan changes package under Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991, in early 2022.

Appendices

1. Appendix A: Development incentive provisions review requirements ⇩

2. Appendix B: Kārewarewa Urupā Report of The Waitangi Tribunal 2020 ⇩

3. Appendix C: Extract of Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga List entry report for a Wahi Tapu Area Te Rua Tupapaku o Te Rangihiroa 2017 ⇩

4. Appendix D: NZHPT Pouhere Taonga Review Report for Takamore Wahi Tapu Area, 2011 ⇩

5. Appendix E: Open Space zone changes for consideration under omnibus district plan change 1L ⇩

Strategy and Operations Committee Meeting Agenda

21 October 2021

8.3 Annual Report on Dog Control Policy and Practice

Author: Tim Sharpe, Team Leader Public Spaces and Animal Management

Authoriser: James Jefferson, Group Manager Regulatory Services

Purpose of Report

1 To present the Kapiti Coast District Council Annual Dog Control Report 2020/21 (the Report) on the 2019 Dog Control Policy and Practices.

Delegation

2 The Council has the delegation to consider this report under section B.2 of the Governance Structure and Delegations.

Background

3 Section 10A of the Dog Control Act 1996 (the Act) requires territorial local authorities to report on their dog control policies and practices as follows:

1) A territorial authority must, in respect of each financial year, report on the administration of:

(a) its dog control policy adopted under section 10; and

(b) its dog control practices.

2) The report must include, in respect of each financial year, information relating to:

(a) the number of registered dogs in the territorial authority district;

(b) the number of probationary owners and disqualified owners in the territorial authority district;

(c) the number of dogs in the territorial authority district classified as dangerous under section 31 and the relevant provision under which the classification is made;

(d) the number of dogs in the territorial authority district classified as menacing under section 33A or section 33C and the relevant provision under which the classification is made;

(e) the number of infringement notices issued by the territorial authority;

(f) the number of dog related complaints received by the territorial authority in the previous year and the nature of those complaints;

(g) the number of prosecutions taken by the territorial authority under this Act.

3) The territorial authority must:

(a) give public notice, as defined in section 5(1) of the Local Government Act 2002, of the report; and

(b) make the report publicly available, as described in section 5(3) of the Act.

4) The territorial authority must also, within 1 month after receiving the report, send a copy of it to the Secretary for Local Government.

Issues and Options

Issues

4 The emergence of COVID-19 has presented unique challenges to the provision of dog control services in the Kāpiti Coast District Council area. In March 2020, Alert Level 4 was imposed nationwide and led to the adoption of new work practices designed to support Central Government’s COVID strategy. Those staff responsible for implementing and upholding Council’s dog control policy worked remotely and responded only to significant events that threatened, or were likely to threaten, public safety. In general, dog control staff did not experience a significant reduction in service requests received by them and were able to tailor their response to uphold the overall COVID strategy (such as the maintenance of social distancing). As exemplified by the most recent Alert Level 3 and 4 lockdowns, the fact that dog owners were at home and permitted to exercise within a reasonable distance of home led to a more regular confluence of dogs on the District’s beaches and streets. General advice to keeps dogs on-leash was issued by Council to forestall any dog-related issues and prevent breaches of COVID ‘bubbles’, although not all dog owners adhered to this advice.

5 As previously stated, a COVID strategy was implemented in March 2020 to ensure that an appropriate and sustainable level of service was delivered to Kāpiti Coast ratepayers. This strategy was again implemented during the most recent Alert Level 4 lockdown and enabled dog control staff to service all urgent requests and most other requests – the strategy has also underpinned the Council’s work at Alert Level 3 and continues to do so at Alert Level 2. This strategy should be retained and subject to on-going review to keep pace with the evolving COVID situation.

Considerations

Policy considerations

6 There are no policy considerations.

Legal considerations

7 The Annual Report contained in Appendix One is required by Section 10A of the Dog Control Act 1996, the report must be publicly notified and a copy forwarded to the Secretary for Local Government by 30 October 2021.

Financial considerations

8 There are no financial considerations.

Tāngata whenua considerations

9 There are no Tāngata whenua considerations.

Strategic considerations

10 Toitū Kāpiti includes an aspiration for strong, safe communities. The Dog Control Bylaw, Policy and practices helps in the attainment of this aspiration because it seeks to enhance the safety of the public and allow the responsible enjoyment of public places in our District.

11 There are no further strategic considerations.

Significance and Engagement

Significance policy

12 Management of dog control through policy and practices has low level of significance under the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, but it is recognised that there is strong interest in dog-related issues across the District because of perception and impact of dogs in relation to public safety.

Consultation already undertaken

13 No consultation is required.

Engagement planning

14 No engagement planning required.

Publicity

15 This report is required to be made publicly available; therefore, the Report contained in appendix one will be available on the Kapiti Coast District Council website; and its availability will be notified in local newspapers.

Other Considerations

16 There are no other considerations.

Recommendations

17 That the Council receive this report and accompanying appendices.

Appendices

1. Annual Report on Dog Control Policy and Practice ⇩

2. Kapiti Coast District Council Dog Control Bylaw 2019 ⇩

[1] Operative District Plan: Appendix 1 - Development Incentives Guidelines, 1.2 Reasons for adopting incentives in the District Plan.

[2] Regional Policy Statement for the Wellington Region 2013. Policy 23, p.104.

[3] Page 14 of the Maclean Park Te Uruhi Reserve Management Plan 2017


AGENDA Strategy and Operations Committee Meeting
I hereby give notice that a Meeting of the Strategy and Operations Committee will be held on:
Date:	Thursday, 21 October 2021
Time:	9.30am
Location:	Council Chamber Ground Floor, 175 Rimu Road Paraparaumu
Sean Mallon Group Manager Infrastructure Services

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