Council Officers Report

Homebush Road Residents Group

Help us save the Ngauranga green gateway to Wellington.

Council Officer’s Report – District Plan Change 68.

Was this report of the quality that the Council should expect?

The Council contracted the preparation of the DPC 68 Council Officers Report to Peter Coop of Urban Perspectives who is understood to have been previously employed by the Council. At even a cursory glance, one would have to question the quality and contents of the report. By comparison with other similar purpose reports for District Plan Changes, it demonstrates a lack of clarity, balance and investigative rigour. There is a ready acceptance of information contained in the initial application that was acknowledged by some who provided expert evidence at the Commissioner’s Hearing as having been deficient and as an overall impression, it appears the writer began with a conviction that the subdivision should proceed, then tailored the report to this end.

The Recommendations of the writer were:

“1. That the Committee recommends to Council that approval be granted to DPC68 with the following modifications:

(a) A permitted activity condition to retain control of the modification damage, removal or destruction of indigenous vegetation provided for by Open Space Activity Area provisions (Rule 17.1.15) until such time as subdivision consent for the site has been obtained; and

(b)Rule 5.2.5 of the Outer Residential Activity Area shall not apply to the site.

That the submissions be accepted and/or rejected in whole or in part to an extent consistent with Recommendation 1.”

Section 4 and Section 9.11 of the report refer to the Environment Court Decision in Capital Coast District Health v Wellington City Council, using this to support the contention that maintaining the Open Space B zoning is unsustainable, presumably because the land is in private ownership. In doing this, he quotes part of the decision as follows:

“If the Council wishes to protect land for reserve purposes, then that purpose should be achieved by designation or acquisition”

Mr. Coop should have considered what he had quoted in the context of the Plan Change 68 application. The Council had protected the land for reserve purposes. The owners at the time of the designation did not appeal, so the new owner, Prime Property Group, bought the land on the understanding that it was not available for residential use. Instead, he endorses the following statement from the decision:

However, this general principle is always subject to the provisions in Part II of the Act. Where particular land has such significance in terms of any of the factors listed in s6 and s7 of the Resource Management Act 1991 that its use or development ought to be substantially limited or precluded, then land controls which may have that effect may be appropriate regardless of the ownership of that land (but subject to s32 and s85).

Clearly this rules based approach is irrelevant if the land is already subject of a protective zoning.

In Section 6, the report specifically names the three supporting submitters (copy of submissions). It is noted that one is an employee of Prime Property Group, another is the Co-ordinator of Rongotai Revived, a lobby group supporting the interests of the DPC 68 applicant Eyal Aharoni and the third, is a commercial property consultant for Collier International. The five points uplifted from their submissions are:

“Approval will increase the availability of land for residential accommodation in an area of obvious demand.
Approval will make better use of existing infrastructure including public transportation.
Approval will result in natural extension to existing Outer Residential Activity Area.
Approval will result in residential sites that will have great views and close proximity to the city and schools.
The site serves little purpose as Open Space – best use is Residential.”

All of these points are at the least arguable. Similar vacant sites nearby are not selling, buses often run at peak capacity and intending passengers are often left behind at peak times, the proposed access to the site is problematic and internationally, major cities fiercely defend their green spaces. One also has to question how many of the proposed sections will retain a view with the layout and density that might be expected.

The Submitters section then goes on to list the Greater Wellington Regional Council as a neutral submitter which starts by posing:

“2.1.1 In assessing the plan change for consistency with the Regional Policy Statement for the Wellington Region, Greater Wellington is particularly interested in how it would support and contribute to Chapter 14 “Built Environment and Transportation” Chapter 9 “Ecosystems” in the regional Policy Statement.”

The submission then goes on to place much weight on the protection and management of ecosystems and does not specifically refer to positive effects of DPC 68 as claimed. In conjunction with the GWRC oral submissions, the impression is gained that if the subdivision is to proceed, they would expect Council to impose a large number of highly restrictive conditions aimed at protecting the natural environment.

Section 6 outlines nine reasons for the opposition to the application of 23 of the 28 submitters. Little effort was made to address most of these, other than transport issues, for which appended reports were provided by a the Principal Planner (Transport) and a Vehicle Access Engineer, the latter suggesting four conditions be imposed if the subdivision is to proceed.

In Section 7 of the Report, the writer covers off on the requirement of Section 3 of the Resource Management Act, by which he means Part 1, Section 3 which reads as follows:

“ Meaning of effect

In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the term effect includes—

(a) Any positive or adverse effect; and

(b) Any temporary or permanent effect; and

(c) Any past, present, or future effect; and

(d) Any cumulative effect which arises over time or in combination with other effectsregardless of the scale, intensity, duration, or frequency of the effect, and also includes—

(e) Any potential effect of high probability; and

(f) Any potential effect of low probability which has a high potential impact.”

At this point he outlines the positives effects as:

“The creation of residential sites in a location that will be attractive to future residents.
Rezoning will result in increased use of existing physical infrastructure that has spare capacity and/or is able to absorb the added demand.
More residents will assist with the sustainability of public bus service along Homebush Road .
More residents will positively contribute to the sustainability of businesses within Khandallah and community groups and organizations that wish to attract more participation.

These assertions suggest that most of the submissions opposing the Plan Change were unread and demonstrate that there was no independent ‘on the ground’ research. Khandallah already has more ‘attractive’ building sites than any other Wellington suburb, and there is no obvious demand as many have remained vacant for a long time. BRANZ have issued a report which demonstrates that there is a trend toward the increasing use of existing properties in a manner that reduces the need for new building sites. An example of a lack of capacity and inability to absorb added demand was clearly demonstrated by the local school on both its written and oral submissions. The public transport situation is a continuing frustration for many users and there have been indications that the service will not be upgraded for some years. Despite the attractiveness of Khandallah for businesses, most have to engage ‘out of area’ tradespersons, Khandallah Village caters mainly for hospitality and fast food customers and the congestion at the local supermarket is such that increasing numbers are opting to shop elsewhere.

The Greater Wellington Regional Council is then again mis-represented as referred to earlier.

The concluding comment of this section of the report is as follows:

“Taken together, these positive effects are considered significant.”

Unlike in other competent Council Officers Reports, no effort has been made to outline then weigh up the ‘effects’ as referred to in the Resource Management Act.

With regard to the Statutory Considerations covered in Section 8 of the report, there are obvious deficiencies. The first is a reference to DPC 48 which is a Central Area Review and has nothing to do with the circumstances of the DPC 68 proposal.

It is stated that the Plan Change does not challenge the overall strategic direction of the District Plan. The application obviously seeks to overturn the legitimate Open Space B zoning and runs counter to Open Spaces and other historical and more recent documents that reinforce the District Plan. When is a challenge not a challenge?

The last comment relates to what is headed ‘Part 2 matters’. These are deemed to be covered by the applicant in the DPC 68 application. On referring back, it is found that no serious effort has been made to address Sections 6 and 7 of the Resource Management Act, and in effect, shows contempt for the provisions of the Act.

One has to question whether the Council Officer’s report is ‘fit for purpose’?

Back>>