Statement of evidence of Matthew William Bonis Dated: 22 ...resources.ccc.govt.nz/files/TheCouncil/policiesreports...1 Evidence of Matt Bonis, Canterbury Regional Council Statement

Statement of evidence of Matthew William Bonis

Dated: 22 November 2012

in the matter of the Resource Management Act 1991

And

in the matter of Submissions and further submissions by the

Canterbury Regional Council on proposed plan

change 67: Highfield Park Limited Living G and

Business 1 Zone to the Christchurch City Plan.

Evidence of Matt Bonis, Canterbury Regional Council

1

Statement of evidence of Matthew William Bonis

Personal Background

1. My name is Matthew William Bonis.

2. I am a Resource Management Planner and Associate with the firm Planz

Consultants. I have some 16 years experience in the field of resource

management. I have completed the Making Good Decisions Course, and

obtained re-accreditation in 2012. I am also a full member of the New Zealand

Planning Institute.

3. I have extensive experience with Plan Changes within New Zealand, and have

provided planning evidence at hearings as requested by both the Christchurch

City Council, Taupo District Council, the Canterbury Regional Council (‘CRC’),

the Auckland Regional Council, Waimakariri District Council and Christchurch

International Airport Ltd with regard to urban growth and development.

Including recently Plan Change 31 - Orion Site, Plan Change 22 - Styx Centre,

Plan Changes 11, 12, 14 and 15 – Kaiapoi Growth Areas, and Plan Change 66

– Templeton).

4. I have reviewed the plan change applications along with the submission and

further submissions from CRC. I have also had the opportunity to consider the

comprehensive s42A report prepared by Ms Eunson and the planning

evidence of Ms McClung as dated 12 November and Mr Putt on 14

November. Whilst I have read the supporting technical appendices contained

within the s42A report, I have focused my attention to the following:

Appendix 2 and 3 Relevant Statutory Plan Provisions;

Appendix 6 Urban Design Assessment (Ms Reeves);

Appendix 8 Stormwater (Mr Norton);

Appendix 9 Water and Waste Water (Mr O’Neill); and

Appendix 10 Transport (Mr Falconer).

5. I have also reviewed the Planning, Traffic and Stormwater evidence prepared

by the applicant’s experts. I have briefly discussed aspects of the plan change

with both Ms Eunson and also Mr Brough (stormwater engineer for Highfield

Park).

6. I visited the subject site and surrounding area on Thursday 8th November

2012.


2

7. Although this is a Council level hearing, I have read and complied with the

Environment Court’s Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses (Consolidated

Practice Note 2006, and its February 2011 amendment) in preparing and

presenting the following evidence.

[A] INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

8. I have been requested by the Canterbury Regional Council (‘CRC’) to provide

planning evidence on Plan Change 67 – Living G and Business 1 Zones High

Field Park. The submission from CRC states that they are conditionally in

support of the plan change.

9. I consider that whilst PC67 has been generally well formulated within the

broader statutory framework, there is a number of mechanics within the

provisions that could be better refined within the scope of CRC’s submission

as follows:

An appropriate reference to stormwater and surface water management:

Amendments sought to Policy 10.3.9(a) – Section 42A Appendix 13

Matter No. 2;

The management of stormwater: in particular amendments to Rule 29.3.3

‘Control of Stormwater – staged development’ - Section 42A Appendix 13

Matter No. 15.

Staging and sequencing: in particular amendments to Rule 29.3.7

Development of deferred land - Section 42A Appendix 13 Matter No. 17.

Density of development / appropriate reference to Regional Policy

Statement: amendments to Rule 29.3.7 Development and reasons for rules

29.32 Section 42A Appendix 13 Matter No. 17.

Inundation: Clarity around the insertion of Rule 12.4.13 to incorporate

attainment of 0.5% AEP as the design standard for floor levels - Section

42A Appendix 13 Matter No. 13.

10. Within the s42A report prepared by Ms Eunson, the CRC is notated as

Submitter #52.

11. In the interests of being succinct, I generally agree with the views expressed

by Ms Eunson and only add to her opinions where I consider that further

material considerations may assist the Decision maker.


3

12. My evidence with regard to the CRC submissions, is that on balance and with

some amendments, the Plan Change better, or more appropriately, achieves

the objectives of the City Plan (s32(3)) (as no objectives are amended by

PC67), and that the Plan Change is conditionally supported as such.

13. In a practical sense, I consider that the submission points raised by the CRC

are more mechanical, than a systemic policy consideration of the

appropriateness or otherwise of the proposal. The confines of these

submission points relate to concerns with stormwater management, inundation

and the density for development. I consider that these matters, despite the

status of Chapter 12A / Change 1 are relatively straightforward, and I tend to

agree with the views expressed by Ms Eunson, Ms McClung and Mr Putt.

14. Accordingly, I consider my position at its simplest is to identify:

Support of the principle to address catchment wide stormwater

management for Policy 10.3.9(a).

More detailed thresholds for considering the attainment of stormwater

management prior to the deferred residential area able to be developed;

Amendments to the explanatory text of 29.32 ‘Residential density’ albeit

recognising that the aspirations of Chapter 12A are yet unable to be ‘given

effect’ to;

A requirement for a 0.5% AEP return period for minimum design floor

levels.

15. Lastly, it is noted that based on the November evidence of Mr Paul Durdin

(Traffic Planner for the applicant), that the notified plan change 67 provisions

relating to the sequencing of the development to the Northern Arterial [Rule

12.4.10(c)] are recommended by the applicant to be deleted, as confirmed in

the evidence of Ms McClung. Mr Durdin also notes [paragraph 107] that the

Highfield Park Project Team advises that the residential yield may well

decrease by 400 households due to land holdings being outside the control of

Highfield. On this basis, I acknowledge the following:

(i). Whilst Highfields have a legislative ability to withdraw this aspect of

the Plan Change, I am of the view that there is a broader

consideration for the Panel as to whether such a modification would

prejudice any party; and furthermore whether the transport network

implications remain appropriate in terms of the wider policy context of


4

the City Plan and Regional Policy Statement and Change 1. In terms

of the latter, I understand that statement’s from Mr Falconer, Mr

Durdin and Mr Edwards identify that development associated with

PC67 will transfer residential growth demands to this site instead of

other growth sites in the north west (there is general agreement that

there is excess residential capacity in Northern Christchurch, and

accordingly the development, or staging of development will not

hamper earthquake recovery resettlement), and accordingly wider

network performance is unlikely to be affected, although there will be

localised network impacts at key intersections. Mr Clark for the NZTA

takes a slightly divergent view in seeing the importance of staging as

tied to the Northern Arterial commissioning, and Mr Falconer is of the

view that limited deferment is still appropriate in this regard.

(ii). The removal of 400 households does raise implications in terms of the

ability to rely on both the attainment of the 15 households per hectare

requirement in Policy 11(b) of Change 1, and also assurances that

the densities, connections and outcomes identified in the ODP can be

attained with reference to Policy 8 of Change 1.

[B]: THE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK AND OTHER RELEVANT STRATEGIES

AND PLANS

16. I consider that Ms Eunson at her paragraphs 13 – 20 appropriately sets out the

statutory context with regard to the relevant considerations of the Plan

Change.

17. In summary, while the first Schedule sets out the procedural matters for

changes to policy statement and plans, Part V of the Act sets out the relevant

considerations must be made in assessing the merits of the change.

18. The general approach for the consideration of changes to district plans under

the RMA is summarised in the Environment Court’s recent decision Long Bay-

Okura Great Park Society Incorporated vs North Shore City Council

(A078/2008) at para 34.

19. Of relevance to this statement, regard must be had to any Proposed Regional

Policy Statement (the Decision Version of Change 1 in this respect), and effect

given to the provisions of the Operative Regional Policy Statement.


5

20. The issue therefore, is whether the change being promoted would more

appropriately (s32(3)(b)) satisfy the purpose of the Act than would the existing

provisions, or some combination between them. The change in my view only

needs to be preferable, or better, in resource management terms to the

existing plan in order to be “most appropriate”.

21. I understand that the application has not sought to amend the objectives in the

city plan, therefore the focus on the evaluation is on the second threshold test

of whether “policies, rules and methods are, with regard to their efficiency and

effectiveness, the most appropriate for achieving the objectives”.

22. Lastly, I do not consider that the Christchurch Recovery Strategy (June 2012)

has a material bearing on this Plan Change, beyond Goal 5.7 which states:

5. Develop resilient, cost effective, accessible and integrated infrastructure,

buildings, houses and transport networks – by:

5.7 drawing on sound information about ongoing seismic activity and

environmental constraints, including other natural hazards and climate

change. (emphasis added)

This issue has pertinence in terms of the CRC submission with regard to

inundation.

[C] SUMMARY WITH RESPECT TO THE RMA

23. In my view, the relevant plans and policy statements, as considered in

Annexure ‘A’ as related to the CRC submission points for PC67, can be

summarised as follows:

(i). Effect must be given to the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement

(1988), which of relevance seeks to protect existing and future strategic

transport systems, and avoid or mitigate the costs of loss or damage to life

and property from natural hazards including flooding.

(ii). Regard must be had to Change 1 to the Regional Policy Statement

(Decision Version, December 2009).

This Change seeks an integrated urban form and development pattern for

the Christchurch metropolitan area, integrating transport, infrastructure


6

and land use. The central Objective (Objective 1) seeks the consolidation

of existing urban areas, and avoidance of unsustainable expansion.

The area subject to PC67 was included within both the Urban Limits, as

well as Policy 6, Table 2 staging, although only 400 households were

provided to 2021, with the remaining 1800 occurring in the following

period.

The importance of Objective 7 appears to be well acknowledged within

the transport assessment by the applicant (Mr Durdin), and I concur that

staging is clearly necessary to appropriately manage the current capacity

constraints on this network. I consider that a determination of the severity

and nature of adverse effects on the transport network between transport

experts is integral, specifically in terms the application of the Northern

Arterial based deferment, in considering the proposal against Objective 7

and Policy 10.

With further refinements to Rule 3-29.3.7 in relation to further stormwater

management, I would consider that the Plan Change acknowledges and

implements the density requirements of Change 1 in terms of the deferred

area stormwater modelling.

I have reviewed the material from Ms Reeve in terms of Urban Design,

whilst I agree with her view that the retail premises may be too centralised

within the development, and that the ODP is somewhat rigid – I consider

that these matters are best resolved between the Urban Design experts,

however I would not consider that either the ODP or respective place

based urban design rules would result in an outcome that does not

conform with Policy 7.

Overall I consider the proposal would achieve the objectives and policies

of the Decisions Version of Change 1, noting that the deferment

constraints on yield provided by stormwater (654 dwellings over 98ha) and

transport would in all likelihood result in a drawn out land release, similar

to that identified in Policy 6(b) Table 2. Mr Durdin (Transport Engineer)

for the applicant identifies in his Evidence Statement [dated 7 November,

paragraph 22] that the northern arterial will not likely be commissioned till

2020 at the earliest, which if the transport deferment rule was retained

would also restrict the release of residential yields.


7

(iii). Regard must be had to the Proposed Regional Policy Statement (PRPS).

I consider that the Highfields development does provide housing choice

within a consolidated, high quality development that adjoins the periphery

of an existing urban area. The plan change also seeks through the ODP

and deferment provisions to ensure that it is compatible with upholding the

quality of the natural environment (being the Styx River, and flood plain

management), and manage effects on significant physical resources

(Objective 5.2.1). In terms of the latter, I have some concerns as to

whether the development yield can be adequately provided for on the

surrounding transport network, specifically in terms of any removal of

deferment as associated with the Northern Arterial. I note that Mr Falconer

for the Council, Mr Durdin [November, paragraph 144] for the applicant,

and Mr Clark for NZTA have a somewhat divergent view on this matter,

although I note that the provisions in Objective 5.2.1(2)(g) and Policy

5.3.7 seek to avoid adverse effects in this regard.

In terms of Policy 11.3.2, I note that Mr Brough [November, paras 69 –

71] seems to imply that an amended Rule 12.4.13 to relate to a 2%AEP,

plus 400mm freeboard based on a Cranford Basin 24 hour duration event

would be sufficient. I do not agree with his suggestion that to provide a

0.5%AEP would result in impractical building designs, although I would

agree that such an imposition would provide a further consideration in

terms of individual dwelling design. I disagree with Ms McClung

[November, paragraph 5.7] that Policy 11.3.2 will be met, and would

recommend that the amended wording provided in the s42A report be

accepted and also applied to the Business 1 zoning.

24. Regard must be had to the Regional Land Transport Strategy (2012 – 2042)

which has Objectives seeking to ensure a resilient, environmentally sustainable

and integrated transport system and increase transport safety.

25. PC67 must consequently, state its issues, objectives, policies, methods and

other reasons, as relevant, as outlined in s76(1). In this instance, policies and

methods, (having regard to efficiency and effectiveness) need to be the most

appropriate method of achieving the objectives of the City (District) Plan.


8

[D] CHANGE 1 AND WEIGHTING

26. I note that Plan Change 67 and associated submissions was notified on 12

May 2012, under the auspices of Chapter 12A of the RPS (the October 2011

Operative CERA version of Change 1). This version of Change 1 included the

identification of the Mills / Hills Greenfield Areas with a total yield of 2,200

households (Policy 6, Table 2) and removed specific staging and sequencing.

This version (CERA version of Change 1) was made operative for a brief time

under the s27 of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 (‘CER Act’).

This was set aside in July 2012 by way of upheld judicial review.

27. In effect the Decisions version of Change 1 is of relevance to this hearing

pursuant to s74(2)(a)(i), as well as the respective weighting issues between

the Proposed Provisions and the Operative Provisions of the RPS.

28. In terms of the urban development of the Mills / Hills block, weighting lies in a

spectrum between the Decisions version of Change 1, which identifies a

staging framework with some 400 households able to be developed to 2021,

and the remaining 1800 between 2021 to 2041; and those appeals which seek

its immediate release (the UDS Partners et al), and those that seek that the

area is not urbanised (Oakvale Farm Limited and Maurice Carter Limited,

albeit as alternative relief).

29. In terms of the PRPS, I understand that whilst all appeals have been agreed to

by way of draft consent orders by all relevant parties, these are yet to be

issued by the High Court, and accordingly the 1988 RPS remains the

‘Operative’ Plan, although substantial weight can be afforded to those

provisions that do not duplicate matters subject to Change 1. This includes

Policy 11.3.2 which was not the subject of any appeal, and accordingly is

considered beyond challenge.

[E] THE SITE AND HISTORY

30. The site description is identified at Section 2 of the application and I concur

with that description of the site and surroundings. Especially the extent of

drainage infrastructure associated with the area.

31. I have spent considerable time in the wider area in association with assisting

the Christchurch City Council with the development of the Belfast Area Plan

the scope of which extended just to the north of the site, and integrated with


9

Plan Change site in terms of both stormwater and the roading network in

particular.

32. I am also familiar with the site itself, and consider that it generally consists of

large lot pastoral farming areas, interspersed with a number of shelter belts

and mature trees. More dense residential settlement adjoins the Styx River

corridor to the north, and there are a number of larger residential dwellings

within the block, as well as buildings associated with farming activities.

33. The living 1 zone immediately to the west largely consists of single storey

residential dwellings circa 1990, and to the west is located more pastoral areas

zoned Rural 3 in the City Plan.

[F] SPECIFIC SUBMISSION POINTS

34. Submission S52/D2 seeks to ensure that Policy 10.3.9 is amended to ensure

reference to the ‘Styx Catchment Management Plan’, which is notated as an

Assessment matter 29.5(e) in the Plan Change as notified. Whilst I consider

the provision of such certainty within the City Plan is a noble aspiration, as is

the need to demonstrate compliance with integrated catchment management

for the Styx, I share Ms Eunson’s concerns [para 222] that requiring

compliance with a management plan that is yet to be approved by CRC would

seem premature, and I would suggest ultra vires.

35. I also note Mr Norton [Appendix 8, para 28] raises that Council is yet to obtain

consent (from CRC) for the ‘Styx River Catchment’, and also outlines that the

applicant could also choose to seek its own resource consent for stormwater

through the CRC – which would also provide a valid mechanism for managing

stormwater effects generated by activities enabled by the Plan Change.

36. I consider that there is sufficient scope withS52/D2 to recommend that Policy

10.3.9(a)(vi) be modified to:

(vi) an approved stormwater management network and associated

facilities

I also consider that there is sufficient scope within the relief to suggest the

following amendment to the Explanation and Reasons to this Objective as

follows:


10

Explanation and Reasons

…

In terms of the issue of stormwater disposal for the southernmost part of

the site, a deferral is proposed to restrict development in part of the site

until a comprehensive plan for the use of the area and integration of

stormwater infrastructure has been developed. holistically addressing

both surface water management and stormwater management within the

entirety of the Living G (Highfield) Zone and wider Styx River catchment.

37. Submission S52/D3 seeks to ensure that the status of Rule 29.3.3 ‘Control of

Stormwater’ – has clarity of application as a critical standard. I consider that

such amendments greatly assist in the interpretation of this provision, and as

also identified by Ms Eunson [para 200], provide a tangible cross reference to

the requirements of compliance at 29.3.7 rather than a non-descriptive

reference to ‘approval of a comprehensive stormwater plan for stormwater

management and flooding mitigation’.

38. S52/D4 seeks to provide a set of measurable thresholds within notified Rule

29.3.3 for the ‘Control of Stormwater – staged development’. The purpose of

the notified provision is to seek to ensure the deferment of the some 94ha of

land containing part of the Cranford Basin Natural flooding area until flooding

issues and surface water management can be resolved. It is understood that

the Stormwater Assessment accompanying the Plan Change (PDP – Section

3, Appendix 12) identifies that “due to time constraints it has not been possible

to demonstrate a solution to historic flooding issues in the south therefore an

area of 94 hectares is subject to a deferred zoning until this matter has been

addressed”. This section also identifies that the subject site is intended to meet

“an ECan requirement for a net residential density of 15 units per hectare”.

39. It is considered that the relief through the submission provides for quantifiable

thresholds against which the proposal can be assessed so as to demonstrate

compliance. The notified provisions are considered to be overly blunt and

imprecise by comparison, and therefore less ‘appropriate’ in terms of s32(3)(b)

of the RMA.

40. I retain my concern as expressed above that reference to a currently

unapproved Catchment Management Plan (sub-clause (ii)) would at best be

presumptive. I also agree with the recommendation provided by Ms Eunson


11

that a narrowed reference to the attainment of the 15 households per ha would

be sufficient, in comparison to the relief in this submission point. I consider that

the ODP’s (Appendix 3xb – (Highfield Park) – South in my view already

spatially illustrate densities and further changes would be unnecessary.

41. I also note and agree with Mr Brough’s suggested amendments relating to

surface water / stormwater management replacing ‘stormwater management,

treatment and disposal’ [refer Statement of Evidence Brough paragraph 68]

Accordingly, the text could be amended as follows:

Volume 3, Part 14 Subdivision – 29.3.7 Subdivision in the Living G

(Highfield Zone).

The land identified on the Living G (Highfield) ODP as deferred shal not

be subdivided until:

(i) A detailed stormwater assessment has been carried out;

(ii) A surface water management and stormwater management,

treatment and disposal solution has been identified;

(iii) Any necessary resource consents required for the discharge of

stormwater have been obtained; and

(iv) An overall density of 15 households per hectare is achieved.

42. S52/D5 seeks to ensure that the appropriate references and terminology used in

the City Plan as amended, reflect the terminology in Change 1 to the RPS. I

note that this submission was drafted in that period between Change 1 (as

Chapter 12A of the RPS) being made operative, and the successful judicial

review against that action being granted in July 2012. Accordingly, as noted in

Section C, the City Council should have regard to Change 1, but not necessary

‘give effect’ to it. In this instance that would make the reference within this

‘Reason for Rule’ as sought within the above submission, temporally incorrect.

43. Furthermore, I am unsure of the purpose it seeks to achieve. It is the Plan

Change itself that must have regard to a Proposed Regional Policy Statement

(s74(2)(i)) or give effect to an Operative RPS (s75(3)(a)). The notified

amendment to Policy 10.3.9(a)(iv), coupled with the provisions set out at 29.3.2

(noting the incorrect reference “Notwithstanding Rule 28.1.2” to be amended to

29.1.2) which would make a breach non-complying, and 29.5 Assessment

Matters for Subdivision ‘Level 1 – All Density areas - Design and layout, matter


12

(l) (presumably with the reference to 23.1.2 to be amended to 29.1.2) all set out

the density requirements of 15 households / ha.

44. The Plan Change, in my view, appropriately sets out to achieve the density

requirements of Change 1 to the RPS, regardless of weight. Section 104(1)(b)(v)

or (vi) would ensure that regard was held to the consolidation aims set out in

Change 1 where there is a breach, and any matter can be considered. In this

instance, whilst I can appreciate the intent of the CRC submission, I consider

this aspect to be less appropriate than alternative wording relating back to

simply higher order consolidation aims; I consider that this relief is contained

within the scope of the submission. The recommended amendments would be:

29.32 Residential allotment size and site density – residential activity.

Minimum and maximum development density standards are required to

make the most sustainable use of available land to accommodate urban

growth, and to create a compact urban area that supports existing urban

and suburban centres and can be more efficiently served by strategic

infrastructure and passenger transport. Residential development not

achieving the minimum density standard also fails to achieve a diversity of

residential densities and consolidation within the Living G (Highfield)

zone, as well as the broader urban consolidation objectives in the

Regional Policy Statement. the long term goals and aspirations of

Proposed Change 1 of the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement for

Greater Christchurch. A mix of high, medium and low density residential

densities are provided in response to the physical constraints and

characteristics of the Highfield Block. High density residential areas are

focused around significant open space areas and access to public

transportation.

45. Lastly, in terms of S52/D6 seeks to require a 0.5%AEP as the design standard

for floor levels. It is noted that the Mills / Hills area (CN5 and CN6) within

Change 1, in my view comes under the ambit of Policy 11.3.2 (Chapter 11,

CPRS) in that the area is subject to inundation.

46. The area is identified for urban development in Chapter 6 of the PRPS.

However, Policy 11.3.1 (of the PCRPS, Chapter 11, Natural Hazards), sub

criteria (5) which relates to avoidance, does not apply, as the area subject to

PC67 is not considered a ‘High Hazard Area’ Accordingly, there does not appear

to be any reason why Policy 11.3.2(3)(a) relating to minimum floor level


13

standards based on the 0.5% AEP event would not apply and should be given

regard to when considering the PCRPS.

47. I note that area is identified in the City Plan Policy 2.5.5 as a ‘land area subject

to flooding’, with the Policy stating:

“To impose standards in areas subject to flood hazard in order to ensure that the

risk of adverse effects on property and people's wellbeing and safety from

flooding and inundation is not increased.”

The respective Explanation and Reasons include the statement that: “The

minimum finished floor level that has been identified with respect to non-tidal

flooding is that which would result from a 0.5% annual exceedence probability

rainfall event plus an allowance for freeboard.”

Figure 1: Policy 2.5.5 Plan ‘Land Area Prone to Flooding

48. The City Plan also has a reasonably consistent approach to the management of

flood risk as set at the 0.5%AEP plus freeboard within notated Flood

Management Areas. Whilst as identified by Ms Eunson [para 203] the area is not

urban and contained within the General Rules (Volume 3, Part 9), those

provisions in relation to filling and building within notated Flood Management

PC67


14

Areas Assessment Matters 9-5.9.3 for a breach of Rule 5.3.3 (as it relates to

identified Flood Management Areas), requires consideration as to whether:

(f) Whether the floor level of the building is above the predicted 0.5% Annual

Exceedence probability flood level plus an allowance for freeboard not

exceeding 400mm;

It should be clarified that the area subject to PC67 is not notated within the City

Plan Maps as a ‘Flood Management Area’.

49. Policy 11.3.2 of the Proposed Regional Policy Statement relates to "areas

subject to inundation by a 0.5% AEP flood event” and requires that subdivision

and development are to be avoided unless there is no increased risk to life and

new buildings have an appropriate floor level above the 0.5% AEP design flood

level (Clause (3) to the policy). Methods (4) to (6) set out how TAs are to

implement this policy:

Method (4) requires that District Plans are amended to avoid subdivision

and developments in locations subject to inundation by a 0.5% AEP flood

event other than in circumstances determined in clauses (1) to (3) of the

Policy.

Method (5) requires that flooding hazards are assessed at the plan change

stage

Method (6) requires that District Plans ensure that in known flood risk areas

the 0.5% AEP flood event is to be determined, and its effects assessed,

prior to new subdivision or development taking place.

What is being sought within this relief from CRC is that provisions to implement

method (4) are included within the Plan Change to ensure an appropriate floor

level such that the adverse inundation effects from a 0.5% AEP event are

mitigated.

50. Accordingly, I concur with the suggested Critical Standard 3, 2.12.4.3 from Ms

Eunson seeking a minimum design standard for building floor levels above an

0.5%AEP return period flood event. I would however suggest a similar standard

is necessary for the Business 1 components of the development.

51. I am unsure as to how Mr Brough’s justification for a reduced standard within his

November Statement has regard to Policy 11.3.2(CPRS) given that there is not

express certainty of the 0.5%AEP being attained. This is compounded by Ms

McClung [paragraph 5.7] stating that that the “design of stormwater and


15

flooding mitigation will ensure that areas subject to inundation by 0.5% AEP will

be avoided”, and then adopting Mr Brough’s recommendation [McClung,

Appendix 1, Rule 12.4.3].

52. I understand from a discussion with Mr Brough that he is of the view that there is

strong likelihood that his recommended provision would comply with the Policy

11.3.2 (of the PRPS) direction to have an appropriate floor level above the 0.5%

AEP design flood level. Given this uncertainty however slight, the recommended

relief from CRC would appear to be efficient and effective in comparison, and

would also in my view be appropriate for achieving Objective 2.5 (City Plan).

[F] THE DISTRICT PLAN

53. Ms Eunson commences at paragraph 67 in terms of her consideration of the

proposal against the provisions of the Christchurch City Plan (‘the District

Plan’). The specific provisions are contained within Appendix 3 of the s42A

report.

54. As identified the application does not seek to amend any District Plan

objectives, and makes policy and method additions. Accordingly, the focus

becomes the appropriateness of PC67 in achieving the relevant objectives of

the District Plan, (as well as given effect and have regard to the operative RPS

and proposed RPS respectively).

55. I concur with Ms Eunson’s summary, and simply wish to reiterate the following

with regard to the CRC submissions.

56. The district plan in summary has the following relevant provisions:

Objective 2.4 which seeks the protection and enhancement of key

elements and processes comprising the City’s natural environment.

The explanation highlights the importance of surface and groundwater

resources which are essential to sustaining the City.

Objective 2.5 seeks to ‘avoid or mitigate’ the actual or potential effects

of loss or damage to life, property or other parts of the environment

from natural hazards. The explanation highlights that flooding and

inundation risk to the City, and outlines that flood risk can be dealt with

in a number of ways, including statutory and physical measures.


16

− Attendant Policies 2.5.2 and 2.5.5 identify that primarily major

hazard areas should be avoided, and that standards should be

imposed in areas subject to flood hazard “in order to ensure that

the risk of adverse effects on property and people’s wellbeing

and safety from flooding and inundation is not increased”. The

associated map to Policy 2.5.5 identifies the southern portion of

the subject area as subject to surface flooding.

− Policy 2.5.7 specifically identifies that the storage and flood

capacity of floodplains, wetlands and ponding areas associated

with the lower Styx river catchment is maintained.

Objective 6.1 aims to accommodate urban growth with a primary

emphasis on consolidation.

Objective 6.2 seeks to ensure patterns of land use that promote good

access and proximity between living, business and employment areas.

Objective 6.3A and 6.3B are concerned with peripheral growth (as

consistent with the broader strategic Objective 6.1 which emphasises a

compact pattern of development). As noted by Ms Eunson [para 79]

Part A represents the pre-conditions for evaluating peripheral urban

growth, whereas Part B seeks to achieve comprehensive green field

residential development that efficiently integrates with the infrastructure

network.

− Attendant Policy 6.3A.1 seeks to ensure that urban

development is not detached from current urban boundaries.

Policy 6.3A.2 aims to encourage growth in areas where

adverse effects on transport and other servicing infrastructure

can be overcome. Policy 6.3A.6 sets out to ensure that

development is avoided or limited in areas subject to natural

hazards, including flooding. Policy 6.3A.10 seeks a defined

barrier to further urban expansion.

Objective 7.1 seeks a sustainable transport system.

− Attendant Policies 7.1.1 to 7.1.5 set out the interdependency

and inter-relationship of transport networks and land use, and

seeks to provide for the efficient use of the transport system.


17

Objective 7.2 aims to achieve an efficient and effective road network

with minimal conflict.

− Policy 7.2.1 to 7.2.4 are the basis for the establishment of the

road hierarchy. Policy 7.2.5 seeks to ensure that land use can

be controlled where it would be incompatible with the supporting

road network.

Objective 7.7 aims to maintain and improve transport safety.

Objective 7.8 aims to ensure that recognition is provided to strategic

links with the City, which in this case would consist of the NZTA

Northern Arterial project.

Objective 10.1 seeks to ensure that subdivision does not occur in

localities where there are significant natural hazard, unless these can

be mitigated.

− Attendant Policy 10.1.1 aims to ensure that any increased

adverse effect on property, wellbeing, or health and safety are

avoided or mitigated where the area is subject to high risk from

flooding or inundation, or the proposal would result in increased

risk of inundation elsewhere.

Objective 11.1 seeks to achieve a diversity of Living environments.

Attendant Policy 11.1.4 aims to achieve this objective through

promoting various levels of residential density, taking into account the

character of the area, capacity of infrastructure and wider consolidation

aims. Objective 11.4 seeks to ensure a pleasant living environment.

Objective 12.1 sets out the distribution and form of business activity to

meet the wellbeing and needs of the community. Policy 12.1.5 sets out

the preconditions for the establishment of new commercial centres,

establishing a preference for where these support residential growth.

57. In summary, from the relevant provisions that I have outlined above it can be

seen that there is a considerable focus on accommodating urban growth, in a

manner that does not deviate from a primary focus on consolidation (Objective

6.1), and manages natural (Objective 2.1), living (Objective 11.1, 11.4) and

productive environments (Objective 12.1) in an integrated manner to make

efficient use of physical infrastructure (Objective 6.3A.). However, development

should be integrated to maintain and indeed enhance the form and function of


18

existing urban areas (Objective 4.1, Objective 6.1) whilst avoiding patterns of

land use that: may affect transport networks (Policy 7.1.4, Objective 7.7); or do

not avoid or mitigate natural hazards (Policy 2.2.5, Policy 6.3A.6, Policy

10.1.1.

58. Overall I consider that the plan change largely achieves the operative objectives

and policies. There are a number of internal checks and deferments contained

within the Plan Change, and as recommended by Ms Eunson these seek to

ensure that those elements of the Plan Change that are less consistent with City

Plan provisions (specifically Transport Volume, Section 7 and flood risk Volume

2, Policy 2.2.5 and Policy 6.3A.6), are accordingly recognised and managed.

These include:

(i). Provisions in relation to the deferment of some 94 hectares until such a

time as appropriate stormwater/surface water management is considered

and implemented (refer proposed amendment 3-4.29.3.7);

(ii). Provisions relating to staging development until key intersections are

upgraded (refer 3-2.13.2.65), and access to the Northern Arterial 3-

14.29.3.9) although the latter is now recommended to be removed by Mr

Durdin for the applicant.

59. Ideally, these matters would be internalised and more accurately dealt with

within the existing Plan Change as there are now significant unknowns as to the

final timeframes for staging and sequencing within the development, and

accordingly any interim household yield. However, with reference to s76(1)(b) of

the Act, and based on the proceeding discussion in Section F of this statement;

given that the rules are to achieve the objectives and policies of the Plan, I

accordingly consider that these aspects are largely taken into account within the

mechanisms proposed.

60. Post the Canterbury Earthquakes of 2010 / 2011 I am also aware of a number of

similar staging and sequencing mechanisms within Plan Changes designed to

ensure that appropriate urbanisation can occur, and the effects managed. These

include the Styx Centre (PC22) which includes staging associated with the

formation of the Northern Arterial; and Prestons Road (PC30) which includes

staging associated with the Northern Arterial and the formation of stormwater

and wastewater facilities.


19

[G] CONCLUSION

61. I consider that plan change seeks to promote a consolidated urban

development, within a set of confines and provisions that aim to provide a high

quality urban environment, maintain and enhance natural values and integrate

with supporting infrastructure.

62. In testing the provisions put forward by: the proponents of the Plan Change; as

addressed with the s42A report; and within the amendments I have suggested

within the within the confines of the CRC submission – it is considered that

these largely implement, by way of giving effect or having regard to the higher

order statutory documents, and assist the City Council in achieving, the purpose

of the Act.

63. There are a number of mechanical matters which I believe have largely been

uncontested between Ms Eunson, Ms McClung and myself. The outstanding

issue is largely limited to the relevance of Policy 11.3.2 in the PRPS as to the

application of an appropriate floor level above the 0.5% AEP design flood level

which I believe is the more ‘appropriate’ provision under s31(3)(b), and an

appropriate reference within Policy 10.3.9(a) to integrated catchment

management given that the Styx River Stormwater Management Plan as yet has

no statutory basis.

64. Lastly, and whilst I am unable to offer any expert analysis in these matters, I

consider that the removal of a deferment of development as associated with the

Northern Corridor needs to be very carefully considered in light of PCRPS

provisions Objective 5.2.1, 5.3.7 and City Plan provisions Policy 7.1.4, as well

as the Regional Land Transport Strategy (2012 – 2042) which has Objectives

seeking to ensure a resilient, environmentally sustainable and integrated

transport system and increase transport safety. I also question the support for

PRPS Chapter 6, Policy 8 to be achieved in conjunction with the ODP at Volume

3, Part 2, Appendix 3a and 3b as

65. it is already identified in the evidence of Mr Durdin [November, para 107] that

some 400 households may not be developed.

Matt Bonis Associate Planz Consultants Dated: 22 November, 2012


20

Annexure ‘A’ – Relevant Statutory Provisions

Provisions of the Regional Policy Statement

Operative Regional Policy Statement

(i). The relevant provisions relate to the operative Settlement and the Built

Environment (RPS Chapter 12) and Transport (Chapter 15) Chapters. Much of

the RPS is now contained in the PCRPS and Chapter 12A. It is understood that

the Appeals to the PCRPS have been agreed by consent order, and await sign

off by the Court and Regional Council. However, given the current statutory

basis for considering Chapter 12A, it is considered that the relevant objectives

and policies in the 1988 Operative RPS are confined to:

(i). Chapter 15: Objective 1 and Policy 1 which aims to protect the

existing and future strategic transport systems by avoiding,

remedying or mitigating adverse effects, thus enabling a safe,

efficient and cost effective transport system to meet present and

future transport needs.

(ii). Chapter 16: Objective 1, Policy 1 which seeks to avoid or mitigate

the costs of loss or damage to life and property from natural hazards

including flooding. Policy 4 which seeks to provide a precautionary

approach to natural hazard mitigation, should be applied where

there is a need to prevent serious or irreversible harm to the

environment in the event of scientific uncertainty.

(iii). Chapter 12: Objective 4 seeks to avoid or mitigate the actual or

potential costs of natural hazards to the community. Policy 6 seeks

to discourage areas being developed for urban purposes where

significant adverse effects from natural hazards will occur.

Proposed Policy Statement (Chapter 12A)

(ii). Change 1 which introduced a new Chapter 12A to the Regional Policy

Statement at time of notification did not incorporate Mills / Hills (Blocks CN5

and CN6) as being contained within the urban limits, or being identified as a

greenfield residential option.

(iii). The Decisions version of Change 1 (‘the Decisions version’) included these

areas, although provided for sequencing only 400 households to 2021, with the


21

remaining 1800 occurring in the following period. The version taken to, and

approved by the Minister for Earthquake Recovery (the CERA version)

incorporated all of Mills / Hills for development (Policy 6(b) and Table 2), with

no specific constraint, noting that Policy 6(a) set out for Council’s to manage

the formation of residential development such that the overriding consolidation

aims were not undermined. As highlighted, given the Court of Appeal Decision,

it is my view that the Decisions version forms the PRPS in this respect, relief

contained within the CERA version or any other version from CRC, and or the

UDS Partners must be simply treated as a potential relief.

(iv). A considerable number of provisions within Change 1 relate to the staging and

sequencing of developments so as to emphasise urban consolidation as key to

promoting sustainable resource management for greater Christchurch. Density

of residential development, together with staging is an important factor in

achieving urban consolidation. This is identified in:

Objective 1: Urban Consolidation, which seeks Urban Development

in Greater Christchurch shall be managed to achieve consolidation of

existing urban areas, to avoid unsustainable expansion outside existing

urban areas and to bring about:

(a) Higher density living environments, particularly in the Christchurch

City Centre Area, in and around Key Activity Centres, and in

Greenfields Areas;

(c) Greenfields development on the periphery of Christchurch’s urban

area, and surrounding towns at a rate which enables the efficient

provision and use of network infrastructure;

Policy 6: Integration of Urban Form and Infrastructure within Urban

Limits, which outlines the staging and sequencing for growth. Policy

6(b), Table 2 identifies the subject site as CN5 and CN6. These areas

form a component of Christchurch’s total household growth by 2,200

new households to 2041 (400 households to 2021, and 1800 from 2021

to 2041).

Importantly, Policy 6(a) and Table 1 sought to ensure that territorial

authorities provided greenfield households, in a manner and at a rate,

that coincided with household density increases within the ‘rest of City’


22

Central City such that the consolidation aims in Objective 1 would be

achieved. Whilst this approach has little relevance (and I would argue

little weight) post the Canterbury Earthquakes, even the CERA Version

maintained a requirement to ensure that territorial authorities considered

the wider consolidation aims of Change 1 in the release of Greenfield

land1.

It would be useful, given the recent greenfield land releases at Prestons

(2500 households), Belfast Village (1,000 households) Wigram, Awatea

and now Mills / Hills both what the expected yields are likely to be given

inherent infrastructure staging, and how associated densification will

accord with Objective 1 of Change 1. This matter does not appear to be

touched upon in the s42A report, however, I must also acknowledge it is

not a concern raised by CRC within its submission. Ms Stewart

(Registered Valuer) for the applicant has provided some helpful analysis

in this regard, in terms of meeting demand and the role of Mills / Hills in

achieving such.

Policy 8: Outline Development Plans and Changes of Zoning

in District Plans Development of urban activities within the Greenfields

Areas shown on Map 1 shall occur in accordance with an Outline

Development Plan. This Plan shall be prepared when it is proposed to

amend the district plan, and shall be included in the district plan to

provide for urban activities (Greenfields Areas). Outline Development

Plans shall:

(d) Demonstrate how Policy 11 (residential density) will be met for

residential areas within the area that is subject of the Outline

Development Plan;…

Policy 11: Residential Density

Residential subdivision and development shall generally achieve the

following minimum net densities, averaged over the whole of an Outline

1 Note 3 attached to Policy 6(a) Table stated: Table 1 states the households required within the Greater

Christchurch area and by which Territorial Authority. The Greenfield Areas in Table 2 exceeds the area needed to provide for the household numbers in Table 1. The availability of the Greenfield Areas is to be managed under Policy 6(b).


23

Development Plan area shown on Map 1 and for intensification

developments:

(b) 15 lots or household units per hectare in Greenfields Areas in

Christchurch City except in Hendersons Basin

(v). Other relevant provisions include:

(i). Objective 2 which seeks a built environment that (a) has a sense

of character and identity, and (d) provides for a range of densities

and uses;

Attendant Policy 7 aims to ensure that Greenfields

Development, intensification, of Activities in Greenfields,

Intensification Areas, should give effect to urban design

best practice. There is also a list of matters (a) to (l)

outlining criteria for the consideration of matters of good

quality urban design.

(ii). Objective 4 which aims to ensure that infrastructure is integrated

with long term land use change. Specifically that the timing of

development should consider the availability of infrastructure.

(iii). Objective 7 which aims to ensure that transport infrastructure is

integrated with development patterns and settlements, and that

modal choice is promoted.

Attendant Policy 9 seeks to ensure that greenfield

development avoids overloading existing and proposed

transport network infrastructure, particularly strategic roads.

(iv). Objective 8 is explicit in its requirements to “Achieve urban

land use and development that does not adversely affect the

efficient operation, use and development of strategic

infrastructure”. The explanation to this objective outlines that urban

land use can adversely affect the efficient use and operation of

strategic infrastructure (such as the Strategic Transport Network).

Attendant Policy 10 seeks to implement this Objective to

“Ensure urban activities do not adversely affect the efficient

use and development of Strategic Infrastructure”.


24

Proposed Regional Policy Statement

(vi). I understand that the four remaining Appeals on points of law to the PRPS are

awaiting final directions from the High Court, and subsequent declaration by

the Regional Council. I understand that this is likely to occur prior to 2013.

Accordingly, I consider that significant weight be ascribed to the relevant

provisions of the proposed RPS. The relevant provisions are found in the

following Chapters:

Chapter 5 – Land use and Infrastructure (Objective 5.2.1)

Chapter 7 – Fresh water

Chapter 9 – Ecosystems and Indigenous biodiversity

Chapter 11 – Natural Hazards

Chapter 17 – Contaminated Land.

(vii). In terms of those matters outside of the submissions of CRC, I consider the

following:

(i). It is understood that the natural character values of the Styx River will be

maintained and enhanced (Policy 7.3.1) principally through the ODP

(Rule 2-12.4.12 and Appendix 3ax and 3xb) and open space provision;

(ii). Substantial modifications are proposed to Horners Drain as a component

of stormwater management new Policy 11.7.13(d) and Rule 14- 29.3.3

(Policy 7.3.1);

(iii). A number of wetlands are to be created (Objective 9.2.1, Policy 9.3.5);

(iv). Liquefaction risk has been addressed (Objective 11.2.1, Policy 11.3.2),

and soil contamination will be addressed at time of subdivision Rule

29.3.6 ‘Site Contamination’ (Objective 17.2.1) an approach that is not

an unusual feature of Plan Changes prepared giving effect to the NES

‘Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health

(viii). In terms of those matters of direct relevance to the CRC submission:

(i). Objective 5.2.1 seeks ‘consolidated, well designed and sustainable

growth’ as the primary focus for accommodating the region’s growth, in a

manner that enables people and communities to provide for their well-

being, and enhancing the overall quality of the natural environment (2(a)),


25

provides sufficient housing choice (2(b)), and avoids adverse effects on

significant natural and physical resources, including regionally significant

infrastructure (2(g));

(ii). Policy 5.3.7 seeks to avoid development which would adversely affect the

safe, efficient and effective functioning of the land transport network;

(iii). Policy 11.3.2 aims to avoid development in areas subject to inundation

unless there is ‘no increased risk to life, and the subdivision, use or

development’ and meets all of the following criteria:

(a) new buildings have an appropriate floor level above the 0.5% AEP

design flood level; and

(b) hazardous substances will not be inundated during a 0.5% AEP flood

event.

The principle reason and explanation states

“For clarity, any new development or change in use that may result in an

increased risk to life falls within this policy.”

Documents

Statement of evidence of Matthew William Bonis Dated: 22 ...resources.ccc.govt.nz/files/TheCouncil/policiesreports...1 Evidence of Matt Bonis, Canterbury Regional Council Statement