Regulatory Committee – 19 April 2017 – Open Agenda
1. Adoption of the 2016 Review of the
Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy
|
Type of Report:
|
Enter Significance of Report
|
|
Legal Reference:
|
Enter Legal Reference
|
|
Document ID:
|
344792
|
|
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:
|
Dean Moriarity, Team Leader Policy Planning
|
1.1 Purpose
of Report
The
purpose of this report is for the Council to adopt
the 2016 Review of the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy
(HPUDS2016).
|
Officer’s Recommendation
That Council:
a. receives
and notes the HPUDS Implementation Working Groups Hearing meeting record and
the recommendation reports (Attachments A and B).
b. adopts
HPUDS2016 in accordance with the Joint Working Group’s recommendations
on submissions, as set out in the appendices attached to this report, as the
regional strategy to direct urban development from 2015 to 2045 (Attachments
C, D & E).
c. appoints
Councillor White as the second elected member (in addition to Councillor
Jeffery) on the Implementation
Working Group
of HPUDS to represent Napier City Council’s interest.
d. approves the Terms of
Reference for the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy Implementation
Working Group for the 2016-19 Triennium (as set out in Attachment F),
conditional on the other two partner councils (Hawkes Bay regional Council
and Hastings District Council) also agreeing to the same Terms of Reference.
|
|
CHAIRPERSON’S
RECOMMENDATION
That the
Council resolve
that the officer’s recommendation be adopted.
|
1.2 Background Summary
The
scheduled five yearly monitoring and review of the HPUDS strategy, as provided
for in the implementation section of the previously adopted HPUDS2010, has now
been completed. The HPUDS Implementation Working Group has considered
submissions on the Draft Review document it published last year and has now
formally recommended that the amended strategy be adopted by the Napier City,
Hastings District and Hawke’s Bay Regional Councils.
HPUDS 2010
Before
considering the Working Group’s recommendations for the review, it is
worth recapping on HPUDS2010.
HPUDS
was adopted in August 2010 by the Hastings District, Napier City and
Hawke’s Bay Regional Councils (the partner Council’s). The purpose
of HPUDS2010 is to provide a comprehensive, integrated and effective growth
management strategy for the Heretaunga Plains sub-region (refer Figure
1). HPUDS 2010 brought together the separate urban development strategies
that both Hastings and Napier had in place covering the period from the 1990s
through to 2015.
Figure 1 - Location Map of Heretaunga Plains sub-region
HPUDS
2010 takes a long-term view of land use and infrastructure and how growth will
be managed in the Heretaunga Plains sub-region for the period 2015-2045.
Other strategies and plans that will influence and be influenced by HPUDS
include:
·
the Regional Land
Transport Strategy,
·
the Regional Land
Transport Programme,
·
each of the partner
Councils’ growth strategies; Long Term Plans (LTPs), District Plans and
the Regional Policy Statement.
HPUDS 2010’s stated vision is:
“In 2045, the Heretaunga Plains is a place where
there are thriving communities, quality living environments with high levels of
amenity, and where mana whenua values and aspirations are recognised and
provided for, and where:
·
There
is a growing and resilient economy which promotes opportunities to live, work,
play and invest.
·
The
productive value of its soil and water resources are recognised and provided
for, and sustainable use is promoted.
·
The
urban centres of Napier and Hastings have distinct identities and provide
complementary living, working and learning opportunities.
·
Community
and physical infrastructure is integrated, sustainable and affordable.”
HPUDS
2010 is also founded on a series of guiding principles as depicted in Figure 2
below.
Figure 2- HPUDS2010 guiding principles
In
implementing these principles, HPUDS 2010 seeks to achieve a compact
development form. This development form was settled on by the partner Councils
after an initial round of consultation in the development of HPUDS. At that
time, the approach to achieve compact development was explained as:
“In the move towards more compact urban form for the
Heretaunga Plains sub-region, an increasing proportion of the residential
growth will need to take place through intensification, by redevelopment within
existing residential and rural residential areas, development is expected to
transition from current development allocation levels to the following by 2045:
·
60%
intensification
·
35%
greenfield
·
5% of
population in rural areas.
The Strategy was also developed on the
basis of achieving balanced supply between Napier and Hastings.”
This
change to a more compact form was envisaged to take the form of a transition
from largely greenfields development to intensification over time. HPUDS
therefore identified specific areas for greenfields development out to 2045 and
seeks to limit such development largely to these areas. To protect the
versatile land resource of the Heretaunga Plains, some tension in greenfields
land supply is considered necessary to encourage the intensification of
development within the existing urban areas to ensure that the 60%
intensification target can be met by 2045. Table 1 below shows this transition:
Table 1: Additional Households for the Heretaunga Plains
2015 – 2045 (HPUDS 2010)
|
Type of
Development
|
Proposed
of Additional Households [No.]
|
|
2015-2025
|
2025-2035
|
2035-2045
|
2015-2045
|
|
Intensification
|
45% [1872]
|
55% [1502]
|
60% [674]
|
51% [4048]
|
|
Greenfields
|
45% [1872]
|
40% [1092]
|
35% [394]
|
41% [3358]
|
|
Rural Residential
|
10% [416]
|
5% [136]
|
5% [56]
|
8% [608]
|
|
Total
|
100% [4160]
|
100% [2730]
|
100% [1124]
|
100% [8014]
|
Defined
growth areas in conjunction with intensification are considered to be more
efficient and cost effective from an infrastructure and servicing point of
view. It ensures land use and infrastructure can be coordinated, development
well planned, and growth on the versatile land of the Heretaunga Plains avoided
as much as possible.
The
growth areas and their potential dwelling yield have been derived by projecting
the dwelling growth needs for the HPUDS study area out to 2045. These projections
are based on demographic information and calculate the number of greenfields,
infill and rural dwellings that will be required to meet these growth needs in
a ratio that achieves the preferred settlement pattern.
The
Strategy’s timeframe deliberately started from 2015 in order to provide a
lead-in time for establishing policies in statutory planning documents (e.g.
the Regional Policy Statement and Hastings District Plan Review). For the
2010-2015 period, existing growth strategies for Napier and Hastings continued
to apply.
Key
implementation actions that have been taken since 2010 include:
·
Change 4 to the
Regional Policy Statement to embed HPUDS policy direction
·
Review of the
Hastings District Plan and a change to the Napier City District Plan to
incorporate HPUDS policy and zoning initiatives
·
Incorporated HPUDS
in land-use projections for the Regional Land Transport Strategy and Programme.
HPUDS Implementation and Review
Following
adoption of the final HPUDS in August 2010, a working group (IWG) was formed to
oversee its implementation. The IWG has no direct decision-making powers,
but can make recommendations to the partner councils. The IWG consists
of:
·
Two elected members
from each partner council.
·
Mayors of Napier and
Hastings councils
·
Chairperson of the
Hawke's Bay Regional Council
·
Chief Executives
from each partner council
·
Two representatives
of mana whenua.
Councillors
White and Jeffery represented this Council on the Group over the last
triennium, which included overseeing the HPUDS2016 Review and hearing
submissions on the Draft document.
This
triennium, Napier City Council has appointed Councillor Jeffery to the IWG but
under its Terms of Reference Napier City Council has the opportunity to appoint
a second elected representative (other than the Mayor) in line with the other
partner Councils. In order to provide balanced numbers with the other
partner Councils and for continuity reasons it is recommended that Councillor
White should also be appointed to the IWG to represent Napier’s
interest. A small Technical Advisory Group (TAG) supports the Working
Group. The TAG comprises senior planning staff from each of the three partner
councils. An updated version of the IWG’s terms of reference is set
out in Attachment F for the Council’s endorsement, subject to similar
endorsement from the two other partner Councils’.
HPUDS
is based on a number of assumptions about future development and infrastructure
trends that will likely change over the next thirty years and the Strategy is
intended to adapt to changing trends over time. As such, HPUDS specifically
provides that the Strategy be reviewed every five years after the results of
the national census are available to ensure that it is kept up to date and
relevant. Due to the Canterbury earthquakes delaying the last census,
this first five year review programmed for 2015 was delayed until 2016.
Current Situation
The
IWG was charged with undertaking the first regular five yearly review and
recommending any changes to HPUDS back to the partner Councils. The IWG split
the review into three stages as set out in Figure 3 below.
Figure 3 -
Representation of the HPUDS Review's key stages
The
IWG commenced the first review by doing a ‘stock take’ of a range
of local and national factors which may have influenced the Strategy since
2010. Eleven separate reports were completed as part of Stage 1 reports.
These reviewed the assumptions upon which the strategy was based, with a
particular focus on the monitoring of growth drivers and trends of the five
years to 2015.
Growth Drivers and Emerging
Issues
The
population growth within the study area from 2009 – 2015, was higher than
that projected in 2009 (by 1,080) due mainly to net migration gain (1,106).
This migration gain was from internal migration from other parts of New Zealand
of 3,172, which more than compensated for a net overseas migration loss of
2,066. However, net migration gains have historically tended to be followed by
losses, hence the long term Statistics New Zealand projections assume a
migration balance.
Similarly,
the total number of ‘households’ in the study area has exceeded the
projections made six years ago by 545 households. In addition to population
increase, this has resulted from demographic and social changes in the
community which has reduced the average number of people per household from 2.6
in 2009 to 2.55 in 2016.
The
HPUDS2016 Review therefore provided updated projections, which resulted in both
population and dwelling growth increases over the 30 year period (based on the
medium – high growth projection scenarios) compared to the HPUDS 2010
projections.
Projected
household growth across the HPUDS Study Area for the 2015 – 2045 study
period is 10,610 households is based on a Statistics New Zealand ‘Halfway
Medium to High’ growth projection scenario. This is an
increase on that projected in 2009 of 8 014 (it should be noted though that
this projection was based on a medium-high projection for Napier City, but a
‘middle of the road’ growth projection scenario within the Hastings
District). Total population growth in the area over this timeframe is
projected to be 16,455, while average household occupancy falls from 2.55 to
2.38.
Forecast
annual average GDP growth for the wider Hawke’s Bay region remains at
1.5% throughout the study period to 2045 with primary industry growth and
infrastructural upgrading, underpinning this growth outlook. Employment is
similarly forecast to grow at average annual rates of 1 - 1.5% during the study
period, so industrial and commercial land requirement projections remain
similar to those projected in 2009.
The
reports completed as part of the HPUDS Review Stage 1 therefore generally
confirmed that the HPUDS 2010 assumptions and directions around urban growth
remain sound despite there being a slightly larger than projected increase in
population during the period 2009 - 2015.
The
updated projections result in a slight population increase over the 30 year
period to 2045 and a more significant increase in dwelling growth (based on
adopting the medium – high growth projections). Nevertheless this
increase would still be able to be accommodated within the HPUDS identified
greenfield growth areas and the infill growth projections over the long term,
with some amendments i.e. there is a sufficient buffer.
In
summary the demographic analysis undertaken as part of the review for the period
2009-2015 (as compared to that predicted as part of the 2010 strategy) found:
•
1080 extra population (mainly increased due to net migration)
• 545
extra households
Projecting
the new demographics over the life of the strategy (30 years) using a standard
whole of population projection results in:
• 8000
extra population (now projected to increase by 16,455)
• 2500
extra dwellings required (now 10 610 projected to be required)
• 1387
extra greenfield sites supply required to proportionally meet the increased
population
What
this means in terms of HPUDS is that projected increase in demand for
greenfield sites (+1387) results in a total projected demand over the life of
the strategy for:
• (4745
total sites now compared to 3358 in 2010)
Scope
of Review
Despite
a long term level of comfort some immediate supply issues (at
Havelock North and Frimley (Lyndhurst) and potentially at Te Awa), suggested
further work was needed around current greenfields supply availability issues
in some locations.
The
Market Demand report also identified that the lifestyle residential housing
supply appears to fall short of the likely total demand to the end of the 2045
study period, despite lessening demand beyond the 2020s with an aging
population requiring better access to amenities and services.
After
considering matters arising from the initial reporting ‘stock
take’, the IWG agreed that the scope of this first 5-yearly review (i.e.
remaining review Stages 2 and 3) would be to:
(1) consider
councils' requests for alternative sites to include in the strategy and make
any required or requested changes to the settlement pattern (including
reconsideration of inappropriate areas for development)
(2) further
investigate the rural residential land supply and regulatory responses
(3) evaluate the
retirement sector and options for accommodating retirement villages
(4) update
hazard information
(5) remove
redundant or low value recommended actions from the strategy, and correct
omissions and errors.
On
this basis the IWG commissioned three further reports as follows:
·
Alternative
Greenfield Sites and Review of the HPUDS Settlement Pattern
·
Review of Rural
residential Lifestyle Sites
·
Retirement Sector
Housing Demands Forecasts 2016-2045
Greenfields Sites/Settlement Pattern
Opus
Consultants undertook an independent evaluation of the comparative suitability
of the residential greenfield areas (including ‘Reserve’ areas) put
forward by the Council’s for inclusion in HPUDS. They were assessed
against the Regional Policy Statement Criteria in Policy 4.2 ‘New
Residential Greenfield Growth Area Criteria’
Due
to the potential high costs associated with servicing land in Te Awa and
concerns around the viability of future stages, South Pirimai was promoted as
an alternative option for Napier while Hastings promoted the following:
·
Brookvale as a
short-medium term substitute for Arataki Extension
·
Part Romanes Drive
as a Reserve Greenfields Growth Area
·
Part Middle/Te Aute
Road as a Reserve Greenfields Growth Area
·
Murdoch Road West as
a Reserve Greenfields Growth Area
·
Wall Road as a
Reserve Greenfields Growth Area.
The
Opus review confirmed that it was appropriate to adopt the Hastings District
Council’s preference for Arataki Extension to be removed from the list of
Greenfield Growth Areas in HPUDS (due to reverse sensitivity issues to odour
from the neighbouring Te Mata Mushrooms) and be replaced with an area fronting
Brookvale Road, Havelock North. Further to this in responding to immediate
greenfields supply availability issues the report recommended the inclusion in
HPUDS of additional ‘reserve’ growth areas, as requested.
It
needs to be clearly understood that Reserve areas’ are recommended to act
as stand-by replacements for the Greenfield Growth Areas. This ensures that
there are identified areas available within HPUDS to ‘bring on’ if,
as has happened with Arataki Extension, a Greenfields Growth Area proves to be
inappropriate upon closer investigation. Having reserve areas that have passed
preliminary pre- screening and are on ‘standby’ should a need
arise, saves the delay that would be associated with a screening assessment
which would otherwise be built into the HPUDS review process to introduce a new
replacement area.
Other
circumstances where a reserve area could be advanced would be if there is a
rapid and significant change in growth demand, or if for example retirement
village needs cannot reasonably be met within the preferred greenfields areas.
It is not however deemed necessary to have ‘reserve growth areas’
for every identified greenfield growth location in HPUDS, but it is prudent to
have them available for the main urban areas of Napier City and Hastings
District.
In
addition a review of ‘Areas Inappropriate for Greenfields Growth’,
specifically identified Whirinaki and South Clive for consideration. The Opus
report subsequently recommended, two areas identified in the
‘Inappropriate Areas for development’ list in HPUDS 2010, be
removed. These are:
·
Clive South (an area
off the end of Read Crescent between SH2 and Muddy Creek); and
·
Whirinaki.
The
report concluded that both areas were identified as inappropriate because of
servicing issues and concluded that both areas warrant removal from the
‘inappropriate’ list, however neither warranted inclusion as
appropriate greenfield growth areas (or reserve areas) in HPUDS.
Rural Residential
Supply
A
specific planning analysis by Cheal Consultants revealed that there is still
available zoned but not yet developed land supplies for rural residential
development in the areas identified as being desired by the market. This
conclusion however relies on ongoing subdivision to create new lots in areas of
market preference, whereas the HPUDS 2010 assumption was that there was already
a surplus of available lots.
The
creation of new lots in areas of market preference may or may not happen. No
action was however deemed necessary at this point in time, but future HPUDS
review processes should continue to identify the supply of lifestyle
residential sites and monitor whether these are becoming scarce in areas of
market preference.
Retirement
Sector
Given
the increasing proportion of the population in the 65+ age group, a specific study was undertaken by EMS
Consultants on this form of housing and its likely demand, and whether this is
likely to be by greenfields or brownfields retirement villages or infill
housing (or combinations).
Retirement
units are likely to represent 30-40% of all future new build housing in the
Heretaunga Plains sub-region between now and 2045, with half of these likely in
‘traditional’ retirement villages. Sites of sufficient size for
this are likely to be found primarily on greenfield land, rather than infill
sites within existing urban areas.
As
retirement housing (with associated higher housing densities) becomes an
increasingly significant factor in the overall housing market, it is possible
that the amount of greenfield land required for future housing development in
the HPUDS study area would be reduced. As these trends develop there will be an
increase in supply and potentially a reduction in demand for larger homes as
these are sold by older people to help fund their entry into retirement
housing. In providing for retirement villages however, there may be a
need to reflect on future housing density rules and ways in which greater
densities can be achieved in both greenfields and infill areas, without
compromising (and ideally enhancing) the urban living environment.
No
immediate change to the HPUDS settlement pattern was considered as a result of
this report at this stage; rather what is required is an awareness that the
type of homes built within the Heretaunga Plains sub-region is going to change
over the study period to meet the demands of the aging population. In addition
there will be a need for developers to be able to aggregate larger blocks
within residential greenfield growth areas in suitable locations to accommodate
retirement villages. Reserve greenfields areas could be used to provide for
retirement villages if the aggregation of sufficient areas of greenfields or
brownfields land proves to be too difficult in the medium to longer term.
Draft
Strategy
The
other component of Stage 2 of the Review was to prepare a draft HPUDS Review
Strategy document, based on the finding of the Stage 1 reports and the
abovementioned Stage 2 reports, for public consultation.
The
redrafted HPUDS document removed the implementation actions that were either
completed or deemed unnecessary (in some cases because they are being actioned
through other existing programmes, plans or strategies). In addition the
redrafting involved the correction of errors and omissions and incorporated
amendments to the HPUDS document arising from the items discussed above.
Further,
it was decided to separate the implementation sections out from the main
strategy document so that it would be more coherent and easier to digest for
external audiences readers. A separate implementation plan (attached as an
Appendix to the report) was produced as a companion document, which would then
guide the future activities of the IWG and Council staff between the 5 year
monitoring and review phases.
Public
Consultation
The
third stage featuring public consultation, involved refreshing the
long-established website (www.hpuds.co.nz) with the content updated in July
2016. All the 2015 – 2016 review information, including new maps and
submissions is posted on that website. Councillors from the three
Council’s were briefed on the draft strategy on 14 July 2016. Full
page advertisement/explanations were included in the community newspapers on
3rd August 2016 and articles were also included in the Hawke’s Bay Today
to advise the opportunity to make submissions on the reviewed HPUDS document.
Notices
calling for submissions were e-mailed and posted to interested parties in late
July 2016. The mailing lists included the following:
• HPUDS
Stakeholder Consultation Group; Submitters to RPS Change 4; and those who
submitted on HPUDS last time (if not already in the stakeholder database);
• Te
Awa and South Pirimai landowners, including land owners within 100m of the
boundary of the newly proposed South Pirimai area; and
• Arataki
Extension, Brookvale and proposed Hastings District Reserve Area landowners,
including land owners within 100m of the boundaries of new areas in Hastings
(Brookvale and reserve areas).
That
consultation phase resulted in over 50 submissions being made on the Draft
Revised Strategy and a hearing being held in early October 2016.
Submissions are available to view on the HPUDS website:
http://www.hpuds.co.nz/review/#sub
In
terms of submission themes and locations the following submissions were
received:
·
Brookvale / Arataki Area
§ Supporting
Brookvale as a greenfields development area but seeking immediate rezoning (11
submissions),
§ Opposing
Brookvale as a greenfields development area (1),
§ Supporting
Romanes Drive as a reserve area (2), and
§ Seeking the
retention of the Arataki Extension in HPUDS (1);
·
Other Hastings District Growth or Reserve Areas:
§ Supporting and
Opposing Iona / Havelock Hills (4),
§ Supporting Middle
Road (2),
§ Supporting Howard
Street (1),
§ Supporting Wall
Road (2),
§ Opposing Murdoch
Road (1),
§ Mapping of
Tomoana Industrial (2) and
§ Mapping of Te
Awanga (2);
·
Requests for New Hastings District Growth Areas or New Reserve
Areas for residential development:
§ Ada Street (1),
§ Pakowhai Road
(2),
§ Clive (2),
§ Raymond Road (3),
§ Waiohiki (1)
§ and Whirinaki
(1);
·
Issues with Existing Growth Areas, Napier at:
§ Te Awa (2),
§ Taradale Hills
(2)
§ and promote
infill housing (1)
·
Requests for New Napier Growth Areas / Development Opportunities
at:
§ Jervoistown (1),
§ Meeanee Road (1),
§ Cnr Riverbend
& Bledisloe (1)
§ and Churchhill
Drive (1)
·
Another 10 general submissions (or parts of submissions) were
received with a variety of more general requests, notably 3 of them strongly
supported the existing strategy and either opposed or urged caution with
regards to the introduction of any new areas or reserve areas.
Hearings and Recommendations
The
Working Group held hearings over two days in October last year and resolved to
write to all submitters thanking them for their submissions and advising them
of the IWG’s recommendations in response to their submissions and
offering explanations based on the officer comments as amended by the Working
Group at the meeting. Submitters were also advised that the final
adoption of a revised HPUDS document could not occur until after the local body
elections.
The
IWG have now recommended to the individual partner councils the adoption of a
revised Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy 2016 as amended by
recommendations of the IWG with such consequential amendments to the Draft
Revised HPUDS 2016 as may be required to give effect to those recommendations.
The
hearings record is attached as Appendix A and details the changes recommended
as a result of the submissions, with the most notable of these being as
follows:
·
Add Romanes Drive as
Greenfields Growth Area back to Thompson Road in addition to Brookvale Road,
with a yield of around 255 sites between the two areas.
·
Remove south Clive
from the list of areas classified as inappropriate for growth and identify the
4 ha block off the end of Read Crescent as being appropriate for growth,
approximately 40 sites.
·
Make reference to
assessment of Raymond Road as part of Cape Coast master planning following the
Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy.
·
Expand Western Hills
(Taradale Hills/Mission Heights) area and increase indicative yield from 350 to
600 sites (+250).
·
Reclassify Arataki
Extension as a Reserve Area and clarify the restricted circumstances for
utilising including “reserve areas”” for development.
A
number of consequential amendments are required as a result of these changes.
All changes both primary and consequential are shown in the tracked changes
version of the strategy attached as Appendix 3. Of note is the need to change
the intensification targets to reflect the added yield resulting from the
inclusion of Romanes Drive and expansion of the Napier Western Hills areas.
While the end target percentages between Greenfields, Rural and Intensification
remain the same, the transition to those targets (refer Table 3) have been
adjusted to reflect the slower intensification take up implied by the increased
greenfields land expected to be made available during the earlier years of the
strategy.
Table 3: revised allocation of
additional residential households 2015-2045
|
Type of Development
|
2015 Development
|
Proposed of Additional Households [No.]
|
|
2015-2025
|
2025-2035
|
2035-2045
|
2015-2045
|
|
Intensification
|
[35]
|
40% [2138]
|
51% [1706]
|
60% [1152]
|
47% [4996]
|
|
Greenfields
|
[40]
|
50% [2673]
|
42% [1405]
|
35% [672]
|
45% [4749]
|
|
Rural Residential
|
[25]
|
10% [534]
|
7% [234]
|
5% [96]
|
8% [875]
|
|
Total
|
[100]
|
5345
|
3345
|
1920
|
10610
|
National Legislative Developments
In
recommending increases in the greenfield growth areas available and adding
‘Reserve Areas’ to HPUDS, the IWG gave consideration to the then
impending ‘National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity
2016’ (NPS-UDC), which came into effect on 1 December 2016. In
short this NPS places an obligation on Councils to meet demand for residential
development in the short (which must be zoned and serviced), medium (which must
be zoned and either serviced or allocated to be serviced in the LTP) and long (identified
in plans and strategies) terms.
There
is a potential tension between HPUDS, which seeks to influence the nature of
future urban growth (towards greater intensification of existing urban areas)
and the NPS which seeks that current and future demand is satisfied (with
current demand being for greenfield land). Just how far reaching the NPS
may potentially impact on HPUDS will become clearer once the Ministry for the
Environment publishes its implementation guidance. Preliminary feedback
to date indicates that central government will attempt to provide a centralised
resource to assist Council’s in implementing the NPS rather than leaving
individual Council’s to work through each and every requirement on their
own. There may be ways in which both the objectives of HPUDS and the NPS can be
satisfied and this is likely to be a focus of some further work overseen by the
new IWG.
In
the meantime however, it is considered beneficial in terms of being able to
progress new developments to adopt the revised HPUDS, which at least moves more
in the direction of the NPS requirements in relation to greenfields land
availability, rather than delaying matters and continuing with the current
strategy in its unmodified form.
1.3 Issues
The
first issue has been canvassed above and concerns the fact that NCC has
currently only appointed CouncillorJeffery to the IWG but under its Terms of
Reference NCC has the opportunity to appoint a second elected representative
(other than the Mayor) in line with the other partner Council’s.
The recommendation in this report is, in order to provide balanced numbers with
the other partner Councils (and for continuity reasons), Councillor White
should also be appointed to the IWG to represent Napier’s interest.
The
second issue that has arisen recently is that both the HDC and now the HBRC
have had a similar report (to this one) presented to their Council’s
seeking adoption of the IWG’s recommendations and both Council’s
have decided (at least for now) to let the matter lie on the table (i.e. not
make a decision on the IWG’s recommendations).
Reasons
for the delay from HDC seemingly focus around not having had sufficient time to
adequately consider the report and its implications (it went straight to an
ordinary meeting of full Council, rather than through a committee first).
In terms of the HBRC, additional concerns identified were in relation to some
of the fundamental approaches over the strategy (i.e. some of the HBRC
Councillors seem to consider that the strategy does not effectively address the
issue of urban development on fertile soils; does not address soil
classifications; has a timeframe which is too long; and does not address issues
such as ‘land-banking’).
As identified above the NPS-UDC requires
all Council’s to provide for urban development that meets demand focusing
on sufficient residential and business development capacity; basing plans and
regional policy statements on robust, accurate and frequently updated evidence;
integrating land use and infrastructure planning; and responding to market
activity in the short, medium and long term. This is effectively what
HPUDS does already, although there may in the future need to be some
‘tweaking’ to the strategy to fully deliver the outcomes required by
the NPS. Viewed in this context the concerns of the HBRC, while well
intentioned, do not necessarily align with what the NPS now requires Councils
to do.
In
order to progress the issue, demonstrate leadership, and to better cater for
current and future demand for residential development within Napier (including
providing a broader range of potential options) it is recommended NCC adopt the
recommendations of the IWG. The net result of this would be to support
the proposal for an expanded residential offering on the Western Hills (the
Mission land) as well as add South Pirimai into the mix for future residential
greenfield land, albeit at this stage only as a reserve area.
The
final issue to be addressed is for Council to approve the Terms of Reference for
the IWG for the 2016-19 Triennium (as set out in Attachment F) conditional on
the two other partner councils also agreeing to the same Terms of Reference.
1.4 Significance and Consultation
HPUDS
is a significant strategy document that already largely meets the needs of the
newly promoted NPS on Urban Development Capacity. The review has tested
the underlying assumptions on which the strategy is based and found them to be
still largely sound, relevant and appropriate. In response to current and
emerging issues a number of amendments to HPUDS have been suggested by the IWG
and these simplify, clarify and enhance HPUDS.
As
discussed above the draft strategy has already been consulted on and a
significant opportunity provided for public consultation where all submissions
were duly considered by the IWG in making their recommendations to the partner
Councils.
Additionally
the substantive 2010 strategy was subject to extensive consultation both prior
to its preparation, as a draft document and through its subsequent
incorporation where relevant in the Regional Policy Statement, City and
District plan reviews and Changes and Council Long Term Plans. Any
significant changes arising out of the reviewed strategy will similarly need to
be consulted on through normal resource management and asset management
processes before they can be implemented.
1.5 Implications
Financial
There
may be a future requirement to provide proportional financial commitment to the
newly formed IWG in line with the other partner Councils in order to fund any
proposed work programme. The newly formed IWG has not yet met to set
priorities and timeframes so it is impossible to quantify any such financial
implications now.
Social & Policy
HPUDS
eventually flows through to the statutory planning documents within
Hawke’s Bay (including the Regional Policy Statement and the District
Plans of Napier and Hastings) by way of specific recognition, zoning patterns
and structure plans for how growth can be coordinated. This has
largely been completed for the 2010 Strategy, but there may be additional
requirements due to the 2016 review. Having land identified in HPUDS as
appropriate for residential growth supports in principle any subsequent
rezoning process but does not guarantee an outcome in the rezoning
process. Other land that is not included in HPUDS can still be rezoned
but will face potentially more difficult hurdles to overcome to find
significant policy support in relevant statutory and policy documents.
Risk
The
risk of not adopting the 2016 HPUDS review is that the issues that have
presented over the last 5 years will not be addressed and that potentially the
process of reviewing the original strategy will have to be restarted.
1.6 Options
The
options available to Council are as follows:
1. Option
1 – adopt the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy 2016 Review
and Implementation Plan as recommended by the IWG.
2. Option
2 – seek changes to the Strategy or request that additional work be
undertaken or technical reports be prepared to be overseen by the new IWG.
3. Option
3 – not adopt the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy 2016
Review and Implementation Plan; refer back to the new IWG with clear reasons
why the revised strategy was not adopted and instructions for further
re-workings.
1.7 Development of Preferred Option
Option 1 would provide the Council with
an up to date framework to assist in the planning of its urban development and
infrastructure for the next 5 years of the 30 year HPUDS period. It would
accord with the delegation given to the IWG to regularly monitor and review
HPUDS to ensure its continued relevance and to consult with and hear and
recommend changes as a result of submissions.
The IWG has considered a considerable
body of monitoring information and new research to come to considered
conclusions as to how HPUDS can be amended to ensure it is fit for purpose over
the near term to reflect changes over the last five years. The IWG has
recommended some amendments without, in their view, detracting from the
essential vision and purpose committed to by the partner Councils when they
adopted HPUDS 2010 and signed a Memorandum of Agreement: ‘Heretaunga
Plains Urban Development Strategy Implementation’.
In respect of Option 2, it is possible
for Council to request some changes to be made to the document, or request
further work over and above that recommended by the IWG (other than minor editorial
amendments). However, the principles of natural justice dictate that the
request should most appropriately be referred back to the IWG for further
consideration as it is the ‘body’ who has heard and considered all
the relevant information. As it stands HPUDS needs to be endorsed
by all three partner Councils’ before the strategy can be formally
adopted as a joint strategy.
Option 3 as the opposite of option 1
would mean HPUDS2010 would remain unchanged. It would not be responsive to, nor
anticipate, changing circumstances and would risk become less relevant in terms
of meeting its strategic objectives and community outcomes it aims to achieve.
The flexibility and improved residential supply buffers and mechanisms proposed
will not be available to assist with a more agile response to market changes
over time, nor to assist with the current supply constraints. This could
compromise our favourable current position in relation to largely complying
with the NPS-UDC direction.
The preferred option is therefore Option
1 – “adopt the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy 2016
Review and Implementation Plan as recommended by the IWG”.
1.8 Attachments
a HPUDS 2016 Submission Hearings Record (Under Separate
Cover) ⇨
b HPUDS 2016 Submission Recommendation Reports Themes 1-6
(Under Separate Cover) ⇨
c HPUDS 2016 Tracked Changes Amendments from IWG's
recommendations (Under Separate Cover) ⇨
d HPUDS 2016 Final Implementation Plan from IWG's
recommendations (Under Separate Cover) ⇨
e HPUDS 2016 Final maps from IWG's recommendations (Under
Separate Cover) ⇨
f HPUDS Terms of Reference (Under Separate Cover) ⇨
NAPIER
CITY COUNCIL
