Central New Brighton height change adopted

18. Plan change 27 TO City Plan – Sections 48(1)(d) and 48(2)(a)(i)

rezoning of Central new Brighton:

Report and Recommendation of Commissioner david mcmahon

purpose of report

1. The purpose of this report is to present the report and recommendations of Commissioner David McMahon who heard submissions on Plan Change 27 to the City Plan.

executive summary

2. Following a series of initiatives including the New Brighton Master Plan in 2002 and the New Brighton Residential Density Study in 2005, the Council in 2006 began a review of the City Plan provisions for Central New Brighton to investigate the potential for, and possible impacts of, an increase in building height and residential density. Technical reports were commissioned to look at a range of potential environmental effects that might result from an increase in building scale and residential density in the study area, and community consultation was undertaken during the study. Based on the findings of the various reports and feedback from the community a package of recommended changes to existing provisions was considered at Council seminars and by the Community Board in late 2006/early 2007. The Council resolved to initiate a change to the City Plan at its meeting held on 21 June 2007 and the change was publicly notified on 18 July 2007. The Council received 206 submissions and 132 further submissions.

3. Plan Change 27 seeks to alter the zoning within parts of central New Brighton to allow for an increase in residential density through changes to permitted building heights, while minimising the potential for adverse environmental effects. New rules relating to design and appearance of buildings and wind effects are proposed.

4. Mr David McMahon was appointed as Commissioner to hear submissions and to make recommendations to the Council on the Proposed Change. He conducted a hearing over four days in May 2008. The hearing was reconvened on 24 September 2008 to hear a submission that had not been summarised in the original notification.

5. The Commissioner’s report, which is attached, recommends that the Council adopt Plan Change 27 with some amendments. These amendments include:

• additional wording in the explanation and reasons to some policies
• limiting administrative and retail activities in an area along the foreshore rezoned by the plan change as Open Space 2 to those that are accessory to recreation and community activities
• increasing the permitted height limit in the Living 3 zone at New Brighton from 14m to 15m with a proviso that there are no more than five storeys above ground
• including an exemption to the residential site density rule for the Living 3 zone at New Brighton that allows balconies and decks up to 20m² in area to be excluded from the calculation of the residential floor area ratio

6. In his overall recommendations, at page 69 of his report, the Commissioner also encourages the Council to consider some wider and non-statutory suggestions made at the hearing which he considers would be of benefit to the community and to New Brighton. He lists these matters as including:

• a comprehensive character assessment that would capture the key character traits of New Brighton
• a set of design and appearance guidelines (eg a New Brighton Design Guide) to assist in guiding the appropriate style and character for developments within the area
• the height and/or contouring of the sand dunes which should be addressed in an integrated way between the Christchurch City Council and Environment Canterbury in light of the potential for development along the coast

18 Cont’d

• improve the lighting along Marine Parade, glass over parts or all of the Mall area, structures on Marine Parade arranged to divert wind from the Mall, provision of wind protected areas to the Pier building and anti-vandalism measures
• As part of the Heritage review, look at providing better interpretation of places, objects and items of historic and cultural significance in many areas of New Brighton.

Some of these matters are discussed in more detail in the body of the Commissioner’s report.

financial implications

7. Approval of the Commissioner’s recommendation that the Plan Change be approved will not result in any additional expenditure. If an appeal is lodged against the decision the Council would need to be represented at the Environment Court. Such representation can be accommodated within existing budgets.

Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2006-16 LTCCP budgets?

8. The recommendations will not impose on the LTCCP budget.

legal considerations

9. The Resource Management Act 1991 sets out a process for considering changes to district plans. This process has been followed.

Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?

10. As above.

alignment with ltccp and activity management plans

11. Aligns with City Plan Activity Management Plan.

Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2006-16 LTCCP?

12. Yes. Supports the maintenance and review of the City Plan project.

alignment with strategies

13. Yes.

Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?

14. The Commissioner’s recommendations align with the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy.

consultation fulfilment

15. Extensive consultation prior to the plan change being prepared was carried out. Consultation required by the Resource Management Act 1991 has been fulfilled.

staff recommendation

It is recommended that the Council:

(a) Receive the report and recommendations of Commissioner David McMahon.

(b) In accordance with clause 10 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991, adopt the recommendation of Commissioner David McMahon on Plan Change 27 as its decision for the reasons set out in the Commissioner’s report.

(c) Refer the matters set out in clause 6 of this report to staff for investigation.