Agenda of Strategy Planning and Partnerships Committee Meeting

Strategy Planning and Partnerships Committee

Fields of Activity

Oversight of all matters relating to the Council’s Strategy Planning and Partnerships functions and the development of policies and strategies in relation to those functions. The matters within this committee’s responsibilities include (but are not limited to):

· Resource Management Act 1991

· Building Control including the Building Act 2004 and the New Zealand Building Code

· Bylaws

· Health Act 1956

· District Plan

· Historic Places Act 1993

· Security Patrol

· Maritime Planning Schemes

Other regulatory matters including:

· Animal and pest control,

· Dangerous goods and Hazardous substance,

· Fencing of swimming pools,

· Litter,

· Alcohol,

· Noise abatement,

· Public health and safety,

· Prostitution,

· Gambling,

· Parking control.

· Responsibility for all matters related to the District’s environment including the environment of neighbouring districts and water bodies

· Other Regulatory matters not otherwise defined.

Membership (Mayor and 14 Councillors)

Chairman appointed by the Council

Deputy Chairman appointed by the Council

The Mayor

All Councillors

Quorum – 8 members

Delegated Powers

General Delegations

1. Authority to exercise all of Council powers, functions and authorities (except where delegation is prohibited by law or the matter is delegated to another committee) in relation to all matters detailed in the Fields of Activity.

2. Authority to re-allocate funding already approved by the Council as part of the Long Term Plan/Annual Plan process, for matters within the Fields of Activity provided that the re-allocation of funds does not increase the overall amount of money committed to the Fields of Activity in the Long Term Plan/Annual Plan.

3. Responsibility to develop policies, and provide financial oversight, for matters within the Fields of Activity to provide assurance that funds are managed efficiently, effectively and with due regard to risk.

4. Responsibility to monitor Long Term Plan/Annual Plan implementation within the Fields of Activity set out above.

Bylaws

5. Authority to review bylaws and to recommend to the Council that new or amended bylaws be made including but not limited to the review of bylaws made pursuant to rules under the Land Transport Act 1998, (primarily relating to speed limits) and bylaws relating to parking.

Legal proceedings

6. Authority to commence, compromise and discontinue mediations, legal proceedings, prosecutions and other proceedings within the Fields of Activity.

Fees and Charges

7. Except where otherwise provided by law, authority to fix fees and charges in relation to all matters within the Fields of Activities.

Resource Management/Environmental issues

8. Authority to make submissions on behalf of the Council in respect of any proposals by another authority under any legislation, or any proposed statute which might affect the District’s environment or the well being of its residents including such matters as adjacent local authorities’ district plans, any regional policy statement, and Regional Plans.

Bylaws

Legal proceedings

6. Authority to commence, compromise and discontinue mediations, legal proceedings, prosecutions and other proceedings within the Fields of Activity.

Fees and Charges

7. Except where otherwise provided by law, authority to fix fees and charges in relation to all matters within the Fields of Activities.

Resource Management/Environmental issues

HASTINGS DISTRICT COUNCIL

Strategy Planning and Partnerships

Committee MEETING

Thursday, 15 November 2018

VENUE:

Council Chamber

Ground Floor

Civic Administration Building

Lyndon Road East

Hastings

TIME:

1.00pm

A G E N D A

1. Apologies

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.

2. Conflict of Interest

Members need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arises between their role as a Member of the Council and any private or other external interest they might have. This note is provided as a reminder to Members to scan the agenda and assess their own private interests and identify where they may have a pecuniary or other conflict of interest, or where there may be perceptions of conflict of interest.

If a Member feels they do have a conflict of interest, they should publicly declare that at the start of the relevant item of business and withdraw from participating in the meeting. If a Member thinks they may have a conflict of interest, they can seek advice from the General Counsel or the Democratic Support Manager (preferably before the meeting).

It is noted that while Members can seek advice and discuss these matters, the final decision as to whether a conflict exists rests with the member.

3. Confirmation of Minutes

Minutes of the Strategy Planning and Partnerships Committee Meeting held Thursday 9 August 2018.

(Previously circulated)

4. Appointment of Independent Hearings Commissioners 7

5. Environmental Policy - Workstream Priorities 11

6. Request to Publicly Notify Variation 6 to the Proposed District Plan 17

7. Additional Business Items

8. Extraordinary Business Items

File Ref: 18/1050

REPORT TO: Strategy Planning and Partnerships Committee

MEETING DATE: Thursday 15 November 2018

FROM: Environmental Consents Manager

Murray Arnold

SUBJECT: Appointment of Independent Hearings Commissioners

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to:

· Inform the Council about the appointment of an independent hearing commissioner, Paul Cooney, to hear and decide on the Russell Roads resource consent application for the processing of gravel at Maraekakaho; and

· Obtain a decision from the Council on a recommendation to appoint an independent hearings commissioner to hear and decide on a Notice of Requirement (NOR). The NOR is for the designation of a road corridor with associated infrastructure for water, wastewater, and stormwater, and a stormwater corridor, for the rezoned residential land adjoining Howard Street.

1.2 The appointment of an independent hearings commissioner to hear and decide on a notified resource consent is delegated to Council staff.

1.3 The decision to appoint an independent commissioner to hear and decide on a Notice of Requirement is a function of Council and is not delegated to Council staff.

Notice of Requirement:

1.4 There is a potential perceived conflict of interest arising from the Hastings District Council being both the Requiring Authority submitting the Notice of Requirement and also being the Regulatory Authority receiving and hearing submissions on the Notice. For this reason it is recommended that an independent commissioner is appointed.

1.5 The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as prescribed by Section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That purpose is to meet the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost–effective for households and businesses. Good quality means infrastructure, services and performance that are efficient and effective and appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances

1.6 The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is to ensure that Council’s regulatory decision making process on this Notice is transparent, effective, fair, and appropriate to the specific circumstances of this Notice of Requirement.

1.7 This report concludes by recommending the appointment of an Independent Hearings Commissioner for the Notice of Requirement.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 Russell Roads Consent Application:

2.1.1 Russell Roads Limited has applied for a resource consent to undertake the processing of gravel associated with gravel extraction activities along the bank of the Ngaruroro River near Maraekakaho. The proposal also involves the establishment of associated ancillary structures. Hours of operation of the proposal are to be between 7:00am and 6:00pm Monday to Friday and 7:00am to 3:30pm on Saturday. A new access road is proposed direct from State Highway 50 to the processing site. Landscaping is proposed in front of the processing site.

2.1.2 The applicant requested public notification of the proposal under Section 95A(3)(a) of the Resource Management Act 1991, and 65 Submissions were received.

2.1.3 Paul Cooney, independent hearings commissioner who holds a valid certificate of accreditation (with a chairing endorsement) under section 39A of the Resource Management Act has been appointed to hear and decide on this application.

2.2 Notice of Requirement:

2.2.1 A Notice of Requirement (NOR) for the designation of a road corridor with associated infrastructure for water, wastewater, and stormwater, and a stormwater corridor, for the rezoned residential land adjoining Howard Street, was lodged with the Council’s Planning and Regulatory Group on behalf of the Council’s Group Manager Asset Management.

2.2.2 The Resource Management Act (s168A) sets out the procedure to be followed where a Territorial Authority decides to issue a notice of requirement for a designation.

2.2.3 The NOR has been publicly notified.

2.2.4 Submissions have been received on the NOR, and as submitters have asked to speak to their submissions a hearing is required.

2.3 Independent Hearings Commissioner Paul Cooney holds a valid certificate of accreditation (with a chairing endorsement) under section 39A of the Resource Management Act, and has previously heard other resource consent hearings for the Hastings District Council, and is available to assist with this hearing.

3.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

3.1 The appointment of an independent hearings commissioner does necessitate consideration under Council’s Significance Policy.

4.0 ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS (INCLUDING FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS)

4.1 Howard Street Notice of Requirement:

4.1.1 Although legislation (s168A Resource Management Act) provides for a territorial authority to hear and decide on its own notice for a designation, use of the Hearings Committee introduces (in this specific instance) a real risk of perceived conflicts of interest.

4.1.2 Use of an independent commissioner has the significant advantage in this instance, of introducing separation between the regulatory process and the Requiring Authority. This separation assists with transparency in the process and addresses perceived conflicts of interest.

4.1.3 The costs associated with either option will be similar as the hearing and decision process has to follow the same procedure. There will be some additional costs associated disbursements for an independent commissioner. Any difference in cost will be minor in relation to the overall costs of the Notice of Requirement process. Costs are recoverable from the applicant.

4.1.4 Several independent commissioners have been approached to check on availability, however Paul Cooney was the only commissioner available out of those commissioners regularly used by Council.

4.1.5 Independent Commissioner Paul Cooney is available to hear and decide on this notice of requirement.

5.0 PREFERRED OPTION/S AND REASONS

5.1 Howard Street notice of Requirement:

5.1.1 Taking into account the scale and importance of this project, and the significant potential for a perceived conflict of interest, it is recommended that an independent commissioner, Paul Cooney, be appointed to hear and decide on this Notice of Requirement.

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Environmental Consents Manager titled “Appointment of Independent Hearings Commissioners” dated 15/11/2018 be received.

B) That independent hearings commissioner Paul Cooney be appointed to hear and decide on the Howard Street Notice of Requirement.

C) That the appointment of Paul Coney as independent commissioner to hear and decide on the Russell Roads Ltd application for resource consent be noted.

With the reasons for this decision being that the objective of the decision will contribute to meeting the current and future needs of communities for performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and business.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

File Ref: 18/1059

REPORT TO: Strategy Planning and Partnerships Committee

MEETING DATE: Thursday 15 November 2018

FROM: Environmental Policy Manager

Rowan Wallis

SUBJECT: Environmental Policy - Workstream Priorities

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to inform the Committee on the Workstreams of the Environmental Policy Section, to allow consideration to be given to priorities when new policy issues arise.

1.2 This issue arises from the need to be aware of future policy matters being brought to the Council by the Policy team and the possible changes that will be made to the District Plan.

1.3 The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as prescribed by Section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That purpose is to meet the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost–effective for households and businesses. Good quality means infrastructure, services and performance that are efficient and effective and appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances.

1.4 The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is in the performance of regulatory functions by providing responsive Council planning services.

1.5 This report concludes by recommending that the information be noted and received.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 Previously the Committee has been kept appraised of the issues that the Environmental Policy Team work programme to allow the committee to consider whether there should be any change to the priorities that have been established.

2.2 The Appeal process on the Proposed District Plan is now nearing completion with most appeals settled. There is one appeal to be heard by the High Court following a decision from the Environment Court. There is one other appeal that is currently in the process of court appointed mediation.

2.3 In 2016 the Council instructed the Policy team to notify three variations to the Proposed District Plan to bring forward rezoning proposals to provide for additional industrial and residential land. The Industrial rezonings at Omahu and Irongate have now been completed and are operative. The Howard Street Variation has an appeal which is currently being mediated. A further variation to bring forward the rezoning of additional residential land at Iona has been through the streamlined planning process under the Resource Management Act and has been approved by the Minister for the Environment.

2.4 With the completion of the Variations and the resolution of the appeals on the Proposed District Plan close to being achieved the Environmental Policy Team put forward a proposed workstream to the Planning and Regulatory Committee in November 2017 This was to be considered in the context of the intention to undertake a rolling review of the district plan, rather than complete it in ‘one hit’ within the ten year timeframe.

2.5 The following priorities were set at that time:

	Task	Suggested Priority
a.	Appeals on the Proposed District Plan and Irongate and Howard Variations	1
b.	Iona Variation	2
c.	Wāhi Taonga Project	5
d.	Changes to the Central Business District (Inner city living)	3
e.	Variation to tidy up matters in the Proposed Plan	4
f.	Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) Workers Accommodation Project	6
g.	Affordable Housing Policy	7
h	Variation to amend the Light Industrial Zone provisions	8

3.0 CURRENT SITUATION

3.1 The appeals on the Proposed District Plan and the Irongate and Howard Variations have been the priority.

3.2 Appeals on Proposed Plan

Appeals	Status of Appeal
a) Federated Farmers (GMO Appeal)	Settled
b) Maungaharuru Tangitu Trust (Wahi Taonga)	Environment Court Decision appealed to the High Court
c) Irongate Variation (Industrial Rezoning)	Settled
d) Howard Street Variation (Residential Rezoning)	In mediation
e) Brookvale Rezoning (Residential)	In mediation

3.3 The Iona Variation has successfully proceeded through a streamlined planning process and the Minister for the Environment has issued his decision to rezone the land to allow for residential development.

3.4 The variation to facilitate residential development within the Central Business District, has been adopted by the Council and is soon to be notified through the Resource Management Act process. Council staff and industry stakeholders have been working on a model to better allow for, and give certainty to, the RSE employers who are providing for the accommodation needs of their workers. The variation on RSE Accommodation is currently being drafted and will be brought to Council for its consideration.

3.5 The Policy Team is also working on a package of variations to the Proposed Plan that recognise matters that have either arisen through the submission process and because of scope were unable to addressed, or are required as changes consequential to appeals that have been settled. This includes changes to the Light Industrial Zone to better reflect differences with the General Industrial Zone, and changes to the heritage provisions.

3.6 In the period since November last year there have been some issues that have impacted upon the priorities previously set. This includes the impacts on the plan resulting from the Te Mata track issue. This will directly impact on the Wāhi Taonga project. The outcome of the consultation on Te Mata may provide some guidance on the most appropriate way to move forward with the Wāhi Taonga project.

3.7 Now that the vast majority of appeals on the Proposed District Plan have been settled it is important that the ePlan (Council’s on-line version of the District Plan) is completely up to date and that the consent orders are included. This is a very important task, as all public access to the district plan is through ePlan.

3.8 A recent issue that arisen as a result of an increase in forestry pruning and harvesting is the hazard effects that forestry “slash” can create on waterbodies. This was evidenced in a significant flooding event in Tolaga Bay and the potential for the same effects in this region is very real. The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council is the lead authority on this project, but it will be a joint authority study, and the policy team will be assisting them in working on an appropriate response. This could result in changes being made to the district plan.

3.9 The Draft National Planning Standards were released for consultation in July of this year. The implementation of these standards is yet to be finalised however indications are that once gazetted that some may have to be implemented within a year and others within 5 years. This will be an important priority for the Policy Team once fully enacted.

3.10 The table summarises the latest priorities for the Environmental Policy Team

	Task	Suggested Priority
a.	Ensuring that ePlan is entirely up to date.	1
b.	Appeals on the Proposed District Plan and Howard Variation	2
c.	Making the Proposed District Plan Operative	3
d.	Changes to the Central Business District (Inner city living)	4
e.	RSE Workers Accommodation Project	5
f.	Variation to tidy up matters in the Proposed Plan	6
g.	Forestry Slash (the hazard effects on waterways created by forestry prunings and thinnings)	7
h.	Introducing National Planning Standards	8
i.	Variation to amend the Light Industrial Zone provisions	9
j.	Wāhi Taonga Project	10
k.	Implementing the Medium Density Strategy	11

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Environmental Policy Manager titled “Environmental Policy - Workstream Priorities ” dated 15/11/2018 be received.

B) That the Committee notes and endorses the priorities outlined in the table below:

	Task	Suggested Priority
a.	Ensuring that ePlan is entirely up to date.	1
b.	Appeals on the Proposed District Plan and Howard Variation	2
c.	Making the Proposed District Plan Operative	3
d.	Changes to the Central Business District (Inner city living)	4
e.	RSE Workers Accommodation Project	5
f.	Variation to tidy up matters in the Proposed Plan	6
g.	Forestry Slash (the hazard effects on waterways created by forestry prunings and thinnings)	7
h.	Introducing National Planning Standards	8
i.	Variation to amend the Light Industrial Zone provisions	9
j.	Wāhi Taonga Project	10
k.	Implementing the Medium Density Strategy	11

i) Setting priorities for the policy work that is required for the Council to meet its regulatory functions and deliver outcomes to the community in a timely manner.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

File Ref: 18/1057

REPORT TO: Strategy Planning and Partnerships Committee

MEETING DATE: Thursday 15 November 2018

FROM: Senior Environmental Planner (Policy)

Anna Summerfield

SUBJECT: Request to Publicly Notify Variation 6 to the Proposed District Plan

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from the Committee on whether to adopt a Variation to the Proposed Hastings District Plan for public notification under the Resource Management Act 1991 (the ‘RMA’) process.

1.2 The purpose of the Variation is to correct an inconsistency in the activity status of internal alterations to heritage buildings within the Te Mata Special Character Zone and to identify a new Heritage Building within the Te Mata Special Character Zone (Appendix 49 of the Proposed Plan).

1.3 This matter arises from a request from Mr and Mrs Bradshaw of 291 Te Mata Road, Havelock North to identify the residential dwelling on their property as a heritage building and list this building for protection under the Proposed District Plan provisions.

1.4 Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as prescribed by Section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That purpose is to meet the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost–effective for households and businesses. Good quality means infrastructure, services and performance that are efficient and effective and appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances.

1.5 The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is:

Regulatory functions which help to prevent harm and help create a safe and healthy environment for people, which promote the best use of natural resources and which are responsive to community needs.

1.6 This report concludes by recommending that Variation 6 – Heritage Provisions and the Identification of Vidal House as shown in Attachment 1 be adopted for public notification subject to the requirements of the Resource Management Act 1991.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 Vidal House (291 Te Mata Road) has been requested to be included in Appendix 49 Heritage Buildings within the Te Mata Special Character Zone by current owners Mr W and Mrs J Bradshaw. Accompanying this request is a heritage assessment report prepared by Graham Linwood (Architect) and reviewed by Chris Cochrane (Conservation Architect). This report confirms that Vidal House meets the criteria for inclusion as a heritage item in the District Plan for its architectural, social and historical value. The listing of Vidal House is also supported by Heritage New Zealand.

2.2 The request by Mr and Mrs Bradshaw has arisen as part of an agreed resolution to an appeal to the Proposed District Plan by the Bradshaw’s in relation to the provisions of the Te Mata Special Character Zone (which is the zone in which the house and land at 291 Te Mata Road is located).

2.3 As part of the resolution of this Appeal, the provisions of the Te Mata Special Character Zone were amended by consent order dated 12 December 2016. In summary the changes that were made to the Proposed District Plan as a result of this consent order sought to allow commercial activities to be established within Heritage buildings and for these to be exempt from any commercial activity threshold or cumulative site threshold limits. The rules also state that where a site is occupied by a heritage building used for commercial purposes and has a minimum area of 5000m², one residential building shall be allowed per site.

2.4 In considering the above request offices became aware of the current non – complying activity status of internal alterations (including internal safety alterations) to heritage buildings within the Te Mata Special Character Zone (Appendix 49). Further evaluation and assessment resulted in the conclusion that this activity status was not intentional and warranted correction. Therefore this matter is also included in within proposed Variation 6.

3.0 CURRENT SITUATION

3.1 Variation 6 proposes a minor amendment to Rule H2 of Table 18.1.5A to include items listed in Appendix 49 (Heritage Buildings within the Te Mata Special Character Area). The amendment to Rule H2 seeks the inclusion of internal alterations to historic buildings listed in Appendix 49 so that these are considered as permitted activities – similar to internal alterations of Category II heritage items. Currently the Activity Table (18.1.5A) within the Heritage Section of the plan does not provide clear direction in respect of internal alterations of heritage buildings listed within Appendix 49.

3.2 As the rules are currently written internal alterations of heritage buildings identified in Appendix 49 are not specifically covered in Table 18.1.5A and as a result a technical argument could be mounted that such activities would fall to be non-complying. Where the District Plan is silent in respect of a type of activity, there is, within the Activity Table of many zones or sections of the Plan, including the Heritage Section, a catch-all rule. In this case Rule H19 which reads – “Any activity not otherwise provided for as a Permitted, Controlled, Restricted Discretionary (Non-notified), Restricted Discretionary, or Discretionary’ is a Non-complying activity”. This rule would therefore apply making internal alternations to buildings listed in Appendix 49 a non-complying activity.

3.3 Such an activity status is incongruent with the rules relating to external alterations for heritage buildings listed in Appendix 49 given that these are a Restricted Discretionary Activity (and therefore need to go through a much less onerous assessment process than non-complying activities). It is also incongruent with the status afforded to internal alterations of Category I and II heritage items being Discretionary and Permitted Activities respectively.

3.4 The objective and policy framework within Section 18.1 provides further guidance in terms of the appropriate consideration and management of the development of Heritage items and particularly whether alterations to heritage buildings within the Te Mata Special Character Zone should be treated more onerously than Category I or II heritage buildings within Appendix 47 and 48.

3.5 Policy HP1 and its explanation states that “…the District Plan defines a hierarchy of heritage Items in order to align levels of protection with levels of classification so that important items are preserved. The Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga identification and classification method is adopted. The method identifies two categories of historic places:

Category I – places of special or outstanding historical significance or value

Category II – places of historical significance or value

Appendices 47 and 48 identify Heritage Items (Places, Buildings Objects) and Appendix 51 identifies Historic Areas. Many of the items are from the New Zealand Heritage List / Rarangi Korero. Appendix 49 identifies items that are associated with the Te Mata Special Character Zone. These are buildings that have heritage value intrinsic to the special character of the area.

3.6 The hierarchy referred to in this explanation confirms that buildings listed in Appendix 49 come below those listed as Category I or II items in Appendices 47 and 48. The explanation states that this hierarchy is used in order to align levels of protection with classification levels. Therefore internal alterations of heritage buildings in Appendix 49 should not be more onerous than that of Category I or II Heritage Items.

3.7 This hierarchy therefore justifies the proposed amendment to align internal alterations of heritage buildings in Appendix 49 with that of Category II items in Appendix 48, as a permitted activity.

4.0 OPTIONS

4.1 There are two options, the first being to undertake a Variation to amend the Proposed District Plan (Option 1) or to leave the Plan as it is (Option 2).

5.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

5.1 This proposal is of low significance in terms of Council’s Significance & Engagement Policy. Consultation has occurred with Heritage New Zealand and will be undertaken under the terms of the Resource Management Act 1991 as required for Variations to the Proposed District Plan.

6.0 ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS (INCLUDING FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS)

6.1 Budgetary provision has been made for the Variation in the District Plan review budget.

6.2 Option 1 will allow the public to have a say and enable changes to be made to the Plan. The Changes will make the regulatory framework clearer and less costly to undertake internal alterations and will facilitate the retention and maintenance of identified heritage buildings in the Te Mata Special Character Zone and the on-going protection of the Vidal House.

6.3 Option 2 of not adopting the Variation for public notification will result in the continuation of the status quo which places additional and unwarranted costs on property owners of heritage buildings within the Te Mata Special Character Zone if internal alterations (including internal safety alterations, for example earthquake strengthening) were required to these buildings. Option 2 also does not seek to protect Vidal House in perpetuity and would leave it vulnerable to relocation or removal, if in the future, the ownership of this property were to change.

6.4 Under the RMA a Variation has some legal effect when it is publicly notified. The weight afforded to the Variation when assessing a resource consent application depends on to how far through the RMA Variation process is. Conversely, as the Variation moves through the process (i.e. submissions, decisions, appeals), the Proposed Plan as a result of Decisions is given less weight. To realise the benefits of an updated district plan it is important to publicly notify the Variation to commence the RMA process.

6.5 In terms of the Local Government Act consideration of ‘cost effectiveness’ to property owners or businesses, it is noted that the Variation will result in much less onerous rules relating to internal alterations of heritage buildings in the Te Mata Special Character Zone and that the current property owner of Vidal House has requested that this building be identified as a heritage item and is aware of the District Plan provisions that regulate and manage activities associated with identified heritage buildings.

7.0 PREFERRED OPTION/S AND REASONS

7.1 Option 1 to proceed with publicly notifying the Variation is preferred as it will ensure the District Plan is more responsive to community needs and in this particular case, the variation proposes changes that will allow property owners of heritage buildings in the Te Mata Special Character Zone further opportunities to retain and manage their heritage buildings. This is consistent with Council’s strategic direction to retain our valued heritage and building a strong economy. Proceeding with adopting and notification of the Variation for RMA submissions is therefore recommended.

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

A) That the report of the Senior Environmental Planner (Policy) titled Request to Publicly Notify Variation 6 to the Proposed District Plan - dated 15/11/2018 be received.

B) That the Section 32 evaluation under the Resource Management Act, the Variation to the Proposed Hastings District Plan (2015), and the accompanying heritage assessment report tabled with this report be adopted for public notification pursuant to Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

With the reasons for this decision being that the objective of the decision will contribute to the performance of regulatory functions by:

i) Progressing Variation 6 to the Proposed Hastings District Plan to ensure that as Council’s primary regulatory tool for managing land use and subdivision, the District Plan is efficient and effective in managing the effects of activities on heritage resources and that newly identified heritage items are retained and protected.

Attachments:

1	Variation 6 - Proposed Amendments to section 18.1 and Appendix 49	ENV-9-19-8-18-2
2	Heritage assessment report Vidal House prepared by Graham Linwood, Architect	ENV-9-19-8-18-3
3	Section 32 Summary Evaluation Report - Variation 6	ENV-9-19-8-18-6

Heritage assessment report Vidal House prepared by Graham Linwood, Architect

Attachment 2

PDF Creator

Hastings District Council

Lyndon Road East, Hastings