Author Archives: Cam Drury

About Cam Drury

Cam Drury is the principal planner at Stradegy. To contact Cam email him at cam@stradegy.co.nz. Stradegy provide expert services in the field of Planning and work closely to coordinate across a range of supporting consultant disciplines across the region.

Medium density housing Hawke’s Bay

Posted on by
Reply

Throughout the years central government have been gradually incorporating legislation into the planning framework that has directed local authorities to consider specific areas for housing developments and incorporating these into the rule frameworks of their district plans.

A key piece of legislative framework is the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD). The NPS-UD was released in December 2020 and formed part of the urban planning focus of the Urban Growth Agenda.

As part of the NPS-UD, Councils were directed to remove overly restrictive planning rules and plan for growth, both up and out, which in turn would enable greater height and density in appropriate areas of high demand and access.

With specific regard to the Hastings District, this has been given effect through the removal of the need to provide on-site carparking, the release of the Residential Intensification Guide in 2020, and the recent notification of proposed District Plan Change 5. Plan Change 5 will provide for medium to higher density residential developments, known as Comprehensive Residential Developments (CRD) in areas which are within or partially within a 400-600m radius of public transport, open spaces and commercial zones.

If a CRD meets the above criteria of Plan Change 5 and the applicable performance standards are met, then it triggers a Non-Notified resource consent. The key change here is the incorporation of the application being non-notified from the start means that consultation with the community is not required.

Although Plan Change 5 is not yet ‘operative’, this form of development has already been formally introduced to Council via the resource consent process. It may come as no real surprise that the incorporation of these developments has been met with some concern and pushback from local communities, evidenced by recent media coverage of proposed housing developments in Ada Street and Southland Road.

Similar opposition has also been voiced in Napier with recent medium density developments on the City’s commercial fringe attracting opposition from local residents.

The challenge to provide a housing solution results in tension between housing providers, developers, Council and community groups and this will be the testing ground for how Plan Change 5 will sit in the real world when it comes into effect. So, what is a solution here?

From what we understand, a key concern is the design of these developments, how they relate to the existing character of the area, and how well they fit into the resultant areas. These concerns all fall within the conceptual umbrella of urban design. Which is what many would refer to as a ‘grey area’ that is open to subjectivity, interpretation and opinion, that are not easily reflected in rules or easily quantified when exercising discretion in decision making.

Urban design is no recent concept, however, it is becoming more and more crucial to incorporate good urban design into these developments as we push for denser towns and cities, to provide for high quality living environments both for current and future generations. There are multiple qualities which fall within urban design, however as stated in the urban design protocol (2005), the key design qualities are limited to seven and include:

■ Context

■ Character

■ Choice

■ Connections

■ Creativity

■ Custodianship

■ Collaboration

It is noted that urban design is very subjective, and that different individuals will have different opinions about how a development fits within the above qualities. However, when it comes to proposed developments, this subjectiveness can be resolved, particularly when the development meets the CRD criteria of Plan Change 5, through consultation between developers and the Council.

The end outcome here is that there are clear understandings between both parties about how the development has incorporated good urban design qualities and the changes which have been made before an application for resource consent is even lodged with Council. What this consultation process looks like will need to be worked through between developers and Council.

Having Council put in place a defined process of urban design consultation with potential developers is a good start. The discrepancies between developers, Councils and community groups are creating a somewhat ugly phase in the process of providing denser towns and cities.

Our combined vision moving forward, needs to be that we provide these developments in a timely manner but that they also provide good quality environments and meet people’s needs. Through the inclusion of good urban design and appropriate consultation between parties where necessary, we believe this can be achieved and will also set a pathway for quality, higher density towns and cities in the future.

Matthew Morley BEP – Intermediate Planner
Matt graduated with a Bachelor’s degree in environmental planning specialising in Society, Politics, and the Environment. With an active interest in the outdoors and surfing, Matt is passionate about achieving good outcomes for both natural and urban environments and draws on his fundamental values to assist clients in achieving high value outcomes. Focused mainly on urban land use planning, Matt has a good understanding of project inputs, and through good communication skills, works well with project teams and Council Officers during both the application preparation and processing stages of a project.

Initial responses and build back better

Posted on by
Reply

The impact of Cyclone Gabrielle has been felt, and will continue to be felt by many, and across many sectors. Suffice to say that many families and businesses have been massively affected. From a resource management perspective, new legislation has been introduced to assist initial recovery responses, and various planning processes are likely to follow around consenting and new policy initiatives to better manage risks and ‘build back better’.

Where a natural disaster occurs, it is recognised that emergency discharges, for example, may occur, and the RMA sets down a process whereby such activities are then consented on a retrospective basis. The need for other activities to occur, that would otherwise require resource consent, is also common as part of any immediate response, and obviously it would not be practicable to wait for a resource consent application for such activities to be granted. Examples include the installation of culverts washed away, construction of temporary bridges and establishing silt dump sites.

Among other initiatives, the Severe Weather Emergency Recovery Legislation Bill widened the breadth of activities that could be undertaken under ‘emergency works’ and extended the timeframe for which retrospective consent applications for such activities need to be lodged. It also introduced new provisions to allow certain emergency activities to be undertaken by certain rural landowners and occupiers as a Permitted Activity. The general purpose of the Bill is to assist local authorities and communities in the areas affected by the severe weather events, and in particular, to:

■ Assist rebuilding and economic recovery,

■ Increase safety and resilience,

■ Ensure governmental activity can continue to be undertaken,

■ Temporarily enable the relaxation or flexible operation of some legislative requirements.

Part 2 of the Bill sets up a process whereby a Minister can recommend an Order in Council which exempts or modifies any legislation for the purpose of planning, rebuilding, and recovery of affected communities and persons.

This could include allowing activities that may otherwise be classified as prohibited to be considered as part of potential responses, such as the burning of certain materials, and providing an alternative (faster) process to standard RMA processes for specific recovery, rebuilding and resilience related activities or policies.

How resource management requirements have affected response efforts and whether enough has been done to assist recovery will draw different reactions and views, but those most affected by the impacts of the cyclone have no doubt been presented with a range of barriers including resource management requirements, and the impact of those barriers should not be underestimated.

Moving forward though, what can we expect in the resource management field?

There will be a number of retrospective resource consent processes for activities that have needed to occur as part of the immediate response and a number of resource consent processes for new activities. There may be new planning projects looking at different alignments for roads and railways and there will almost certainly be projects looking at risk management and land use planning within areas subject to risk.

What new land use controls may look like may differ between affected areas and are likely to be influenced by the degree of risk mitigation able to be established. Hawke’s Bays’ strength is its natural environment and diversity of industry, and although the impacts of the cyclone on those most affected cannot be cast aside, there is opportunity to think about what a more resilient Hawke’s Bay may look like, and opportunity in the Bill to carve out a process to enable these sort of things to be considered.

The term ‘build back better’ is frequently referred to, but what does ‘better’ mean, and who are we building back for? Let’s not overlook those who have been most affected, and let’s understand what build back better means for them as a starting point and make sure efforts are focused and prioritised for their benefit.

Is the housing crisis over? How effective is the fast track planning process?

Posted on by
Reply

In our April 2022 article we talked about housing supply and how the effective use of fast-track planning processes under the RMA could assist us, while on the other hand recognising the views of some economists that ‘the housing market boom is over’. While the latter could be considered to prevail the former, does this make the issue worst?

Even if the housing market boom is in fact over, there is a legacy issue that still needs to be dealt with in that while the problem may or may not increase – Hawkes Bay had the problem, and that problem remains.

Our concern is where does the motivation and funding come from to address the initial problem if there is a perception that end buyers are not there – especially in a climate of increasing building costs, uncertainty and greater onus around lending.

Further, while fast-track planning processes have been established under the RMA to speed up delivery, is the motivation there to take these up, especially when from the outset they are still relatively daunting processes and not necessarily quick relative to the somewhat volatile environment we’re playing in.

We’re finding ourselves thinking a lot more about what planning process may be the best for a given development scenario – is it a standard subdivision resource consent process? Should it include a concurrent land use consent to allow houses to be built quicker – noting that this may involve investment prior to the certainty of consent, or is the Covid 19 Recovery (Fast Track Consenting) Act 2020 the better option? This option may work well for development where the actual built outcome is known, but not so well for subdivision where various development scenarios would need to be provided up front with little flexibility during implementation.

On the other hand, while many of the limitations around resource consenting processes can be addressed through a Schedule 1 District Plan Change process, these are typically longer processes, and while the Streamlined Planning Process was introduced to try and speed these up through limiting appeals, there are entry criteria and approval is required by the Minster.

All these options have their own advantages and disadvantages and its all about matching the circumstances of the proposal to the process. The point is, without a high level of motivation, they are all daunting. So, if motivation is dropping or the appetite for risk is dropping, or does indeed drop, what then?

The answer lies in working together, and our observations are that our Councils are very open to this – in fact they’re doing it. Examples include 18 houses completed on Korowhai Street Flaxmere, funded by MHUD, built by Soho Development and managed by Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga, housing completed at Kainga Ora’s 40-lot development at Kauri Street/Place, Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga and Waingakau building 120+ houses for intergenerational whanau, and similar infill developments being completed by both Kainga Ora and private developersin Napier.

We’ve been fortunate to have been involved in the planning of a lot of these developments and have certainly noticed a theme of greater collaboration and smart resourcing to reduce risk and build certainty earlier in the process.

If we can achieve this, then confidence, or at the very least, comfort, is maintained, motivation is sustained, outcomes are delivered, people are housed, and our region is as great as we all know it can be.

We think it’s important to think outside the square, be open to working together differently and leverage off the strengths or opportunities of others – while being aware of the limitations and drivers of the various players involved. It may seem cliché, but collaboration from start to finish is where ‘easy’, or at least ‘easier’, is probably going to be found.

What’s up with Town Planning for Housing Supply in Hawke’s Bay

Posted on by
Reply

To be blunt, like the rest of New Zealand Hawke’s Bay is flat out. Demands on planning and land development are high, with long lead in times for consultant support, and even higher demands on Council consenting, fuelled by low interest rates, high housing demand (social housing, and new housing – greenfield and infill and reinvestment in existing homes), along with new industry and commercial activities establishing in or relocating to our region.

It seems crazy that this demand is so great considering supply chain issues and increasing costs across all aspects of the development process, with other professional services such as engineering, surveying, and architectural providers also at capacity. For housing this high-level of demand has been confirmed by the jointly prepared ‘Housing Development Capacity Assessment 2021’, by Napier City Council, Hastings District Council and the Hawkes Bay Regional Council, as required under the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPSUD). This is the same legislation that has recently removed rules requiring onsite car parking, and has enabled fast-tracking of three or more houses on a site – but not in Hawke’s Bay. The capacity assessment quantifies housing demand and supply capacity under short, medium, and long term scenarios (long term being 2050).

The capacity assessment suggests the current planning provisions allow capacity for an extra 5450 new dwellings in Hastings and 14,000 in Napier by 2050 – concluding that Hastings can meet short term housing demand, whilst Napier is ok through to 2050. That is assuming adequate infrastructure, such as roading, water supply, stormwater and wastewater is provided, however delivering these services is also confronted by technical capacity and supply chain issues. These projected supply figures look good on paper and the efficiency benefits of intensification are recognised across the planning industry. The reality is however that intensification alone will not resolve the current housing supply shortfall. The elephant in the room however is the current housing backlog, which is not quantified in the study. Whilst future projections look positive, what about the now? – especially given that the Bay is already well behind the 8-ball.

The effects of this backlog are reflected in Hawke’s Bay residential rental increases of 14% in the last year, the highest regional annual rent increase in the country (as reported by NZME). Alongside this is the delivery of infrastructure and wider infrastructure upgrades to accommodate new development. We can obtain approvals for new development, but these sit there awaiting the installation of infrastructure. In my view, what is needed is the effective use of the fast-track planning processes available under the Resource Management Act. We need to promote re-zoning and/or consenting for development on the multiple small pockets of land already identified as suitable for ‘future urban’ development, but we need to do it now. Many of these areas, on the perimeter of our existing urban areas, can be readily serviced and accessed and do not warrant the same Structure Planning rigour needed for large greenfield development.

As I write this a new headline appeared from Westpac economists ‘the housing market boom is over’, – due to high inflation and tighter monetary control. What this means to me is that the ability and drive of the market to address Hawke’s Bay’s housing backlog will become constrained, and without taking bold action to increase supply, we will not have the ability to house those that are most in need, and realising the ‘enabled capacity’ that has been projected may well prove to be an unachievable goal.

Intensive housing options should be considered

Posted on by
Reply

erraced housing is not always on the agenda for developments, but surely Hawke’s Bay is on the cusp of providing for this type of housing as it presents an opportunity for another type of living within Hastings and Napier.

The planning provisions in the Hastings District Plan provide for terraced housing. The expectation for terraced housing is generally to be provided for in groups of three, comprehensively designed for the site and its surroundings. A design-led approach demonstrating that the design is the best option for the site, given all the competing uses and effects — such as building footprint, private outdoor space, carparking, utility space, logical indoor — outdoor flow, privacy, daylight and sunlight.

Terraced housing could do with a positive marketing campaign so it is no longer considered as a lower quality living option. Terraced, duplex or other forms of denser housing can provide the perfect set up for a range of different lifestyles.

Busy lifestyles that require time out and about with work, sport, socialising (when we’re not in a bubble), and yet where people can return to a warm new home offering living over two levels.

Depending on the size of the dwelling between two and four bedrooms, open plan living and carpark/storage. Private open space that optimizes sun and shade, developed with appropriate landscaped garden and fencing that gives privacy and outlook, and an inviting entrance from the street.

The National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 (NPS-UD) ramps up the concept of residential intensification for our larger cities which are identified as Tier 1, of the NPS-UD).

It also gives a nod to Tier 2 centres such as Hastings, Napier, Palmerston North, New Plymouth to do as much as they can. Like all local authorities, the Hastings District Council will be investigating how and what they need to do to implement the NPS-UD, and what if any changes need to be made to the District Plan to support intensification.

Meanwhile Napier City Council has recently released a draft Spatial Picture for comment. The draft Spatial Picture collates and presents layers of spatial information such as regional employment, transport/movement, centres, residential intensification, and provides an initial evaluation of growth options.

This draft Spatial Picture will be an important tool going forward for the city and wider region to implement the NPS-UD. In addition, and related, Napier City Council released their draft District Plan for comment — so we can see where and how the rule book provides for different land uses — including how denser residential developments are to be provided for.

Whilst it is inevitable that the residential environments of the future, in Hastings and Napier, will have denser forms of housing, perhaps we can skip the ugly phase and have quality denser environments that are also enjoyable places to live.

Are RMA reforms the solution for HB’s housing issues?

Posted on by
Reply

In February, Environment Minister David Parker announced the government’s proposals to repeal and replace the RMA with the following three Acts:

1. Natural and built Environment Act

2. Strategic Planning Act

3. Managed Retreat and Climate Change Act

These actions are in response to a broad consensus that the system introduced by the RMA has not adequately protected the natural environment or enabled development where needed and has under-delivered for urban areas – contributing to rapidly increasing urban land prices to the extent that NZ’s housing is amongst the least affordable in the OECD. While it will be interesting to see if it is the legislation itself or implementation by people, or in fact other non-RMA factors such as engineering approval
or infrastructure delivery processes that is the culprit, which will inevitably be borne out over in time, the option of fundamental change certainly seems to have been favoured over targeted improvements. Let’s hope that day to day resource management is improved as a result and we’re not getting wholesale change for a few issues in a few areas of country. Immediate issues with housing supply cannot be denied however, and with the Randerson review referring to poorly managed urban growth leading to increased homelessness, worsening traffic congestion, increased environmental pollution, lack of transport choice and flattening productivity growth, the reality is its not just enabling development for developers, its actually about enabling development for society.

Here in Hawke’s Bay urban growth is underpinned by the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy. Embedded within the Regional Policy Statement the Strategy requires Councils (or private parties) to complete a complex Plan Change process to re-zone land, including development of Structure Plans to guide future subdivision consent applications and infrastructure development. That process is then followed by a subdivision consent application layer prior to commencement of residential development (building houses).

This process can typically take 3-5 years plus to get to a point where a house is constructed. Given our housing shortfall and the severity of associated social issues, this ‘release’ timeframe is unacceptable. Will the reforms assist us? In time probably yes, but what is the time frame? While an ‘exposure draft’ is said to be released in September this year, media releases refer to this containing only limited details and not details such as consenting processes, designations, proposals of national significance, Environment Court workings or transitional arrangements. While these details will obviously follow in time, initial indications are that the new laws will not be in place for three years or more.

Indeed, Central Government has suggested it will be five years for the reforms to have effect! Can we wait? and if not, why must we remain bound to the current ‘preferred’ but inadequate process? We say, ‘lets not’. Let’s not ‘do nothing’ in the hope of future solutions. Let’s not wait for change that may not even work. Let’s not leave families to raise their children in motels and substandard housing during their formative years – in the hope of a house when they become teenagers, only for their first home to be unaffordable.

Let’s bite the bullet, let’s buck the system, let’s, as a community, try a few  different things and see if there’s a model that enables Councils to design concepts within existing areas that developers or ministry organisations can pick up with greater certainty and get on with building for example. Lets look at those areas already identified in HPUDS, or parts them, and really think about the need for prolonged and expensive Plan Change and Structure Plan processes and consider whether we can jump straight to a subdivision process – potentially saving years of delay. I’m not suggesting we do away with planning tools. Indeed, the Resource Management Act, in its current form, includes tools to help enable this brave approach – we just need buy-in from Councils and the Community to get a little more creative on how to apply those tools and be open to applying different methods to different situations. We can do this – Hawkes Bay is different to Auckland and Tauranga, our new development areas are not actually that big, so let’s just keep things in the box.

Just doing this may well achieve at least some of the outcomes that we as a society desperately need a whole lot earlier than the alternative. Who knows, with a narrower approach seemingly being talked about, it may well be that we lose some of the flexibility that is actually there if we choose to use it. Given what is at stake, shouldn’t we be willing to look at things a little differently and get a little more enthused about trying to make things happen, as there is a real risk that the solutions being talked about are in fact for the next problem, in 10-15 years’ time – not this one.

 

Policy changes come into force

Posted on by
Reply

August and September saw several new pieces of legislation come into force. Two of these include:

1. The National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020

2. The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020

The National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 came into effect on 20 August 2020. It replaced the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity 2016.

The NPS-UD 2020 recognises the national significance of having well-functioning urban environments now and into the future and providing sufficient development capacity to meet the different needs of people and communities.

It requires Councils to plan for growth and ensure a well-functioning urban environment for all people, communities and future generations by:

  • Ensuring urban development occurs in a way that takes into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (te Tiriti o Waitangi)
  • Ensuring that Plans make room for growth both ‘up’ and ‘out’, and that rules are not unnecessarily constraining growth
  • Developing, monitoring and maintaining an evidence base about demand, supply and prices for housing and land to inform planning decisions
  • Aligning and coordinating planning across urban areas.

Key points include:

  • Policies pertaining to intensification seek to improve land-use flexibility in the areas of highest demand – areas with good access to the things people want and need, such as jobs and community services, and good public transport services.
  • Minimum parking rates in District Plans are to be removed as a means to improve landuse flexibility in urban environments.
  • Removing minimum parking rates in District Plans is anticipated to allow more housing and commercial developments, particularly in higher density areas where people do not necessarily need a car to access jobs, services or amenities. Urban space can then be used for higher value purposes than car parking. Some degree of car parking will still be required however – certainly for accessible car parking, but the intent is for the number of car parks to be driven by market demand.
  • Although minimum rates may be removed from District Plans, car parking is still likely to be a major consideration for any resource consent process, and it may be that losing this sort of guidance (or ‘acceptable solution’) from District Plans will have unintended consequences on streamlining the process. Have we just leapt to the other end of the spectrum?

The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 came into force on 3 September. It succeeds the 2014 and 2017 versions and provides local authorities updated direction on how they should manage freshwater under the Resource Management Act 1991.

Managing freshwater in a way that ‘gives effect’ to Te Mana o te Wai is the central principle. This is all about:

  • Involving tangata whenua
  • Working with tangata whenua and communities to set out long-term visions
  • Prioritising the health and wellbeing of water bodies, then the essential needs of people, followed by other uses.

Core objectives are to improve degraded water bodies and maintain or improve all others using bottom lines defined in the NPS. Key points include:

  • Threatened species and mahinga kai join ecosystem health and human health for recreation, as compulsory values
  • Councils must develop plan objectives that describe the environmental outcome sought for all values
  • Councils will have to develop action plans and/or set limits on resource use to achieve specific attributes.
  • There are tougher national bottom lines for the ammonia and nitrate toxicity attributes

With the Plan Change 9 (TANK) being notified just prior to this new version of the NPS, it is unclear as to how and when the new NPS will be implemented, or how it may affect the TANK process. Whatever the case, it is sure to have a significant influence on future planning processes and the way everyone manages land and freshwater.

It seems change in this sector is coming at a rate where policy approaches are almost immediately redundant upon development, and that initiatives are continuously needing to change before substantial progress is even made.

New themes emerge in RMA changes

Posted on by
Reply

An emerging theme in our sector is that there are more matters to be considered – and more to be considered earlier. An inevitable outcome is that things may take longer – meaning its even more important to be aware of the necessary inputs and to set realistic timeframes.

Some of the main changes we’re observing relate to archaeological matters, cultural values and hazards. None of these are necessarily a bad thing, however – it’s just an element of change.

Section 6(h) of the Resource Management Act requires all persons exercising functions and powers under it to recognise and provide for the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development. This has generally been given effect to by District Plans and property information identifying the presence of archaeological sites, for which the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 sets out a framework for allowing and managing works that may affect such sites.

There has always been an overlap between the two Acts, and while authorities in relation to archaeological sites are sometimes obtained prior to or as part of resource consent applications for larger projects, it is becoming more common for this to be focused on for smaller projects as well – requiring greater inputs up front of a process.

This has pro’s and con’s. On one hand, greater certainty is obtained for all parties, but on the other, gone are the days of stepping through the process one regulatory step at a time and managing cost as you obtain more certainty. Whether the RMA actually envisages the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 being implemented concurrently seems to be a mute question, as the emerging theme is that if it needs to be done at some point, it needs to be done now.

It’s a slightly different situation with cultural impact assessments, but there is again an emerging theme that these are beginning to be required on what would have been considered less complicated applications. Again, I’m not suggesting this is a bad outcome, as in most cases they reveal some pretty interesting findings and matters that are worthy
of consideration and management.The message is that inputs previously associated with only larger scale projects are becoming common day requirements.

As we’re becoming more aware of different natural hazards, this is another topic which is requiring a lot more consideration earlier. Again, not a bad thing considering the idea is to avoid making decisions that could put people, property and infrastructure in harm’s way. However, while the technical inputs are based on very hard science, there is subjectivity around the parameters used to generate models and predictions, and a lot of time can be spent between designers and auditors in agreeing on the inputs and being comfortable with the solutions.

So, the message is there are actually a lot more things to consider earlier now. This shouldn’t justify just wanting to know things for the sake of knowing them, but where reasonable, it’s a transition we all need to make, meaning projects need to be well scoped and momentum maintained.

As a company we have increased our capacity and are continuously reflecting on and responding to changes in the industry and have developed processes to identify necessary inputs early so that key areas can be refined and focused on and certainty obtained so that costs and timeframes can be managed as best as possible.

Policy set to protect productive land

Posted on by
Reply

In April 2018, MfE and Stats NZ published the Our land 2018 report, which is a comprehensive assessment of how human activity is affecting the state of New Zealand’s land to date. The report identified two main pressures facing highly productive land on the edge of towns and cities:

  • expansion of urban areas, and the accompanying loss of productive land; and
  • change of land-use on the fringes of urban areas, in particular the increase in lifestyle blocks.In response, the Government has proposed the National Policy Statement – Highly Productive Land (NPS-HPL) to prevent the loss of productive land and promote its sustainable management.

    The overall purpose of the proposed NPS-HPL is to improve the way highly- productive land is managed under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) to:

  • recognise the full range of values and benefits associated with its use for primary production
  • maintain its availability for primary production for future generations

• protect it from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development.

Alongside this, the Action for Healthy Waterways Summary document, which is an ‘at a glance’ summary of the discussion document informing amendments to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPS-FM), reports urgent action is required to improve water quality. In summary the amendments to the NPS- FM are seeking:

• better management of stormwater and wastewater

• no further loss of wetlands and streams

• tighter controls to prevent sediment loss from earthworks and urban development

• farmers and growers understanding and managing environmental risks and following good practice

• new standards and limits on some farming activities in some regions or catchments.

The Government is also continuing work in other areas of freshwater, including allocation of allowances to discharge nutrients, institutional/ oversight arrangements for the freshwater management system, and addressing Māori rights and interests in freshwater.

It is a busy time for both the rural and urban environments. On one hand the NPS-HPL is all about preserving production potential, but on the other hand primary producers feel that the combined effect of increased restriction and considerable changes to operating procedures arising from freshwater reforms, exacerbated by short timeframes, is limiting the potential and certainty of the primary sector.

Issues associated with urban environments are ALSO facing similar ironies. On one hand, communities want to see rapid improvements in water quality, but are apprehensive around changes to stormwater discharge requirements and increased rates to invest in improved infrastructure.

Here in Hawke’s Bay we’re in the thick of it, we’ve got all the issues at our back door about to be played out during the next term of Council.

There will be debates around competing interests, timeframes and what should be invested in, and our Councillors and Councils will need to grapple with changes at both the local and national level and how national policies and local outcomes can be aligned to achieve the sought of place we want to live, work and play in.

A national direction and framework is important in managing complex issues, however the question will be how much we can plan for our own communities and how free we will be to develop our own methods and approaches taking into account the very realistic needs and constraints of the different sectors of our community.

The first test will come with the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council TANK Plan Change, which will introduce new management regimes and requirements affecting landuse, the use off freshwater and discharge activities in the Tutaekuri, Ahuriri Ngaruroro and Karamu catchments. This has been 7 years in the making already, so it’s going to be very interesting to see how things play out in what is arguably a far more sensitive and demanding environment now.

Napier begins review of District Plan

Posted on by
Reply

Napier City Council has recently launched its District Plan review process, which at this early stage is looking to be based around the following six key outcomes:

1. Putting people first,
2. Open for business,
3. A port and coastal city, 4. Our people our stories, 5. Ecological excellence, 6. Pedal power.

Too often the Plan development process falls into an academic exercise where the direction of a District Plan gets forced to respond to only resource management issues, which risks a framework focused around the status quo, or worst still, the past.

The District Plan development process is supposed to be a creative exercise, where we can do some blue sky thinking and dare to be bold and consider what could be.

The way Napier City Council is approaching this review is refreshing, and while there are obviously certain processes and legal frameworks that need to be followed, this doesn’t mean one can’t create or feel free to suggest ideas, after all, that’s what Planning is all about.

All too often we fall into the trap of thinking it’s all about creating and ticking boxes and following the way it was done in the past, or trying to put different issues or proposals in the one box as we think we need to drive towards the same sort of outcome for everything in the one environment. This happens when the theme or tone of a process or planning document is inherentlyuncreative or not interested in thinking about things. The result is often a regulatory environment where it seems hard to get things done or to introduce new ideas, let alone get excited about them.

Napier has some great opportunities. We have people visiting from all over the world, and having been to a few different places in the world myself, Napier is right up there through the lens of a tourist, and easily comparable to memories of the Mediterranean with its small towns, novel architecture, vibrant centers, coffee shops and eateries. Napier has this potential.

The ecological excellence idea is a great opportunity. Although some may think this gets borne out in greater regulation, its actually the clean streets, water bodies, harbour and coastline, and the well- developed and planted parks and reserves that we all enjoy spending time in. Focusing on ecological excellence is actually one of the easiest things to do to enable our community to unload and spend quality time with our friends and family. Ecological excellence benefits all of us.

So what can you expect in a District Plan process. Well Napier City Council have announced it intends to notify a draft plan in 2020. Between now and then there will be a number of informal ways to contribute ideas and feedback to inform that initial draft. There will then be time to make a submission on the draft prior to the formal Plan being notified.

Once formally notified, the process gets a little more organised. A first round of submissions enables you to make a submission on the plan. A summary of these submissions is then notified, and there is an opportunity to make a further submission as to whether you are in support of, or in opposition to an original submission. There may be opportunities to discuss or mediate on different issues to reach a resolution, but the next step is generally for a report, or series of reports to be prepared that makes a recommendation to a hearing panel. A hearing, or series of hearings is then held where all the outstanding issues are heard and decided on. The Plan will then become operative as all appeals, if there are any, are resolved.

Although managed in a quasi-legal sense, the process is purposely informal so as to encourage participation. This is important, as while the more academic part of a District Plan review sets down what ‘must be’ included, it’s an opportunity to think about what we ‘want’ to include for our City – and who knows, this may influence how we manage those things that must be included.

I think the direction Napier City Council is looking to take our city, and more importantly the manner in which they are wanting to do it, is the way it should be, and while there will no doubt be competing interests and debate around the detail, future outcomes seem exciting – and they’re the ones we can only imagine at the moment.