AND REBUTTAL EVIDENCE OF SARAH-JANE OLIVER ON BEHALF OF CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL

Transcription

1 Page 1 of 286 BEFORE THE CHRISTCHURCH REPLACEMENT DISTRICT PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 AND IN THE MATTER of the New Neighbourhood Zone hearing, made up of: - Residential (part) Stages 1 and 2 - Subdivision (part) Stages 1 and 2 - New Neighbourhood Proposal REBUTTAL EVIDENCE OF SARAH-JANE OLIVER ON BEHALF OF CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL PLANNING - OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND REZONING REQUESTS 5 JANUARY 2016 Barristers & Solicitors D J Laing / S J Scott / C J McCallum Telephone: Facsimile: sarah.scott@simpsongrierson.com PO Box 874 SOLICITORS CHRISTCHURCH 8140

2 Page 2 of 286 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION SCOPE PRESTONS ODP, RICCARTON PARK ODP AND WIGRAM ODP... 2 EVIDENCE OF JASON JONES FOR CANTERBURY RACECOURSE RESERVE TRUSTEES AND NGAI TAHU PROPERTY LTD (#2366) SOUTH MASHAM ODP... 4 EVIDENCE OF MS STEWART FOR TEGAL FOODS LIMITED (#2774 and #2460) AWATEA ODP... 5 STATEMENT OF MR DELLACA AND MS STIELLER FOR #2306 AWATEA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATED INCORPORATED, #2264 STIELLER, #2279 KING, #2287 STEWART, #2290 STEWART, AND TINDALE AND DAWE NORTH HALSWELL ODP... 6 EVIDENCE OF MS JULIE COMFORT FOR MILNS ROAD FARM LTD AND BLAKESFIELD LIMITED (RNN8)... 6 EVIDENCE OF MR MARK BROWN FOR DANNE MORA HOLDINGS LIMITED (RNN5)... 6 EVIDENCE OF MS KIM SEATON FOR OAKVALE FARM LIMITED (#2337, FS2818, RNN7) SOUTH HALSWELL ODP AND RNN ZONING... 9 EVIDENCE OF DR ALMOND AND STATEMENT OF MR WOODFORD (#2314)... 9 EVIDENCE OF MR HEAD FOR KENNEDY'S BUSH ROAD NEIGHBOURHOOD ASSOCIATION (#2412) SOUTH WEST HALSWELL ODP MS STEWART FOR HOLISTIC EDUCATION TRUST (#2127) UPPER STYX ODP EVIDENCE OF MS PATRICIA HARTE FOR SUMMERSET GROUPS HOLDINGS LIMITED (#2251) Attachment A: RNN Revised Proposal 5 January 2016; Attachment B: Updated excerpt from Residential Stage 1 Accept / Reject Table; Attachment C: Section 32 Report; Attachment D: Excerpts from the Rural Chapter Revised Proposal 8 December 2015; and Attachment E: Marshall Day Acoustic - Canterbury Kart Club Noise Mitigation Options.

3 Page 3 of INTRODUCTION 1.1 My full name is Sarah-Jane Oliver. My experience and qualifications are set out in my evidence in chief dated 7 December I confirm that I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in the Environment Court Practice Note 2014 and that I agree to comply with it. I confirm that I have considered all the material facts that I am aware of that might alter or detract from the opinions that I express, and that this evidence is within my area of expertise except where I state that I am relying on the evidence of another person. 2. SCOPE 2.1 My rebuttal evidence is provided in response to the following evidence in chief / statements filed on 18 November 2015: (a) Mr Jason Jones on behalf of Canterbury Racecourse Reserve Trustees and Ngai Tahu Property Ltd (#2366); (b) Ms Angela Stewart on behalf of Tegal Foods Limited (#2774); (c) Mr Dellaca and Ms Stieller on behalf of #2306 Awatea Residents Associated Incorporated, #2264 Stieller, #2279 King, #2287 Stewart, #2290 Stewart, and Tindale and Dawe; (d) Ms Julie Comfort on behalf of Milns Road Farm Ltd and Blakesfield Limited (RNN8); (e) Mr Mark Brown on behalf of Danne Mora Holdings Limited (RNN5); _1.docx 1

4 Page 4 of 286 (f) Ms Kim Seaton on behalf of Oakvale Farm Limited (#2337, FS2818, RNN7); (g) Mr Keith Woodford (#2314) ; (h) Ms Elizabeth Stewart on behalf of Holistic Education Trust (#2127); and (i) Ms Patricia Harte on behalf of Summerset Groups Holdings Limited (#2251). 2.2 My evidence has the following attachments: (a) Attachment A: RNN Revised Proposal 5 January 2016; (b) Attachment B: Updated excerpt from Residential Stage 1 Accept / Reject Table; (c) Attachment C: Section 32 Report; (d) Attachment D: Excerpts from the Rural Chapter Revised Proposal 8 December 2015; and (e) Attachment E: Marshall Day Acoustic - Canterbury Kart Club Noise Mitigation Options. 3. PRESTONS ODP, RICCARTON PARK ODP AND WIGRAM ODP EVIDENCE OF JASON JONES FOR CANTERBURY RACECOURSE RESERVE TRUSTEES AND NGAI TAHU PROPERTY LTD (#2366) 3.1 Mr Jones has discussed and recommended some further changes relating to the Wigram and Prestons ODPs and specific changes to the ODP specific rules in paragraphs 25 to 49 of his evidence. Mr Collins has accepted these further minor changes in his rebuttal evidence (refer to paragraphs 7.1 to 7.3 of his evidence). I _1.docx 2

5 Page 5 of 286 also agree that Mr Jones proposed changes to Rule A(2) Residential net density, Rule A(4) Minimum lot size, Rule A(5) Minimum lot width, Rule Site coverage, and Rule Road boundary building setback are appropriate, so to avoid frustrating future development. 3.2 I support Mr Collin's position (refer to paragraphs 7.5 to 7.7 of his rebuttal evidence) that any inconsistency with an Outline Development Plan should be considered as a discretionary, rather than restricted discretionary activity, as proposed by Mr Jones and Ms McIntrye for the Crown (#2387). Considerable effort has been made through formal and informal mediation to significantly refine and focus the development requirements in each ODP. These elements are very important to achieve objectives and policies and integrated management principles and therefore full discretionary status is warranted. 3.3 In regard to the minor changes proposed to the Wigram and Prestons ODP narrative (specifically clarifying variations to density requirements) by Mr Jones at paragraph 68 and 69 of his evidence, I accept these changes are appropriate. As Mr Jones has also identified, the Wigram ODP as proposed in the Revised Proposal dated 7 December failed to include land that was agreed in the Stage 1 Residential hearing to be deferred until the RNN hearing. Further that this land is more appropriately zoned RNN. I agree with this position and the subject land has now been included in the Revised Proposal in Attachment A to this evidence (refer to the amended Appendix ODP) _1.docx 3.4 In regard to Mr Jones' comments on the Riccarton Park (Riccarton Racecourse) ODP in paragraphs 50 to 69 of his evidence, the main matter of issue concerns the racecourse chute. Mr Milne has reconsidered the justification for this requirement in paragraph 3.4 of his rebuttal evidence and accepts its removal on the ODP. I agree with this position given that this desired link is only being sought (annotated) on the premise that the Riccarton Racecourse operation may in the long term future cease, and the land be 3

6 Page 6 of 286 sought for residential development. There is no certainty that this will ever occur. Thus the chute link is not justified at this stage. 3.5 This change is included in the Revised Proposal, in Attachment A. 4. SOUTH MASHAM ODP EVIDENCE OF MS STEWART FOR TEGAL FOODS LIMITED (#2774 and #2460) 4.1 My first comment in relation to Ms Stewart's evidence concerns the scope of the submission which is not on the South Masham ODP nor on the RNN zoning or zone provisions. The Tegal further submission referenced by Ms Stewart (#2774) relates to policy and rules changes within Chapter 17 Rural. It is their submission #2460 that supports the setback requirements from poultry farming activities. 4.2 I understand the submission falls within the scope of this hearing given the submission on the defined term "sensitive activity, which is used in the RNNZ and therefore within the scope of the hearing. Notwithstanding this, I accept that there is potential for reverse sensitivity effects to arise from the neighbouring establish chicken farm (owned and operated by Tegal), should the northern part of the South Masham ODP area be developed for residential purposes. The Council submitted on the re-notified South Masham ODP (RNN2, D3) seeking to extend the area in the north-west shown as "residential development area with greater development constraints" eastwards to recognise potential reverse sensitivity effects arising from odour from the neighbouring poultry farm. 4.3 Rule of the proposed Canterbury Air Regional Plan (pcarp) manages rural discharges to air and establishes a 200m setback for sensitive activities from intensive poultry farming. The Revised Proposal Chapter 17, Rural dated 8 December 2015 reflects this setback requirement. Refer to Rule Minimum separation distances (see Attachment D of my evidence). No _1.docx 4

7 Page 7 of 286 similar rule has however been included in the RNNZ, and in my view to ensure effective administration of this rule and support the Rural Chapter provisions, it should be repeated in some form. 4.4 In the RNNZ this is particularly an issue, given the known and existing location of the poultry farm neighbouring the South Masham area. The alternative solution is for the ODP to be amended to illustrate and reference back to the required setback in the Rural Chapter. I have followed the latter approach in the Revised Proposal in Attachment A. Non-compliance with Rule will deem the activity restricted discretionary (refer to Rule RD1 - Revised Proposal 8 December 2015). I consider that non-compliance with this setback rule will not warrant the proposed activity being deemed inconsistent with the ODP under Rule A and Rule The matter relates to only one specific resource management issue being appropriately managed. 5. AWATEA ODP STATEMENT OF MR DELLACA AND MS STIELLER FOR #2306 AWATEA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATED INCORPORATED, #2264 STIELLER, #2279 KING, #2287 STEWART, #2290 STEWART, AND TINDALE AND DAWE 5.1 Mr Dellaca and Ms Stieller have questioned the basis on which Council have imposed a noise restriction for residential development of the land located south of the Christchurch Southern Motorway (CSM). The Council's consideration of the most appropriate zoning for this land has been informed by numerous noise assessments relating to the existing Christchurch Kart Club. In particular, a noise assessment prepared by Marshall Day Acoustics on noise mitigation options 1 (refer to Attachment E) found that should the Kart Club remain, even with a 10m high noise barrier, typical residential development would not be possible within about 400m of the track. In effect this constrains _1.docx Canterbury Kart Club, Noise Mitigaton Options, Marshall Day Acoustics, 19 March

8 Page 8 of 286 residential development south of the CSM until the Kart Club is relocated. I have amended the Awatea ODP narrative to improve the link between the narrative (and this development restriction) and the relevant rule (this being Rule NC3). 5.2 In regard to the relief sought by the submitters in paragraph 20 of Mr Dellaca and Ms Stiellers' evidence, whilst I fully understand their desire for immediate action upon the Kart Club's acceptance or otherwise of the Council's relocation funding, any decisions on lease arrangements and/or an alternative rezoning plan, requires the Council to follow due process and Council agreement. 6. NORTH HALSWELL ODP EVIDENCE OF MS JULIE COMFORT FOR MILNS ROAD FARM LTD AND BLAKESFIELD LIMITED (RNN8) EVIDENCE OF MR MARK BROWN FOR DANNE MORA HOLDINGS LIMITED (RNN5) EVIDENCE OF MS KIM SEATON FOR OAKVALE FARM LIMITED (#2337, FS2818, RNN7) 6.1 This evidence seeks changes to the North Halswell ODP. Ms Reeves has addressed Ms Comfort's evidence in relation to a reserve on the submitter's land (refer to paragraph 5.2 of her evidence) and I agree with her position. 6.2 Mr Brown and Ms Comfort have raised an issue with the alignment of the two north to south collector roads, in particular they have a concern that the roads do not follow the alignment as notified in Stage 1 Chapter 8. There was a change in the alignment in the Revised Proposal provided with my evidence in chief, generally to follow the common boundary between properties. I have subsequently had informal discussion with Mr Brown, Ms Comfort, Ms Reeves and Mr Milne regarding what is the most appropriate 'indicative' alignment _1.docx 6

9 Page 9 of Overall, provided two collectors are established through the site from north to south, the development of the wider block will achieve development requirement 4f in Appendix D, being a fully interconnected road network (I refer also to Mr Milne's evidence in 6.4 and 6.5). I do however, accept Mr Brown's and Ms Comfort's evidence that there can be significant difficulties where adjoining property owners have to reach agreements to jointly construct a collector road. Further the master planning for Area 1 (Meadowlands Exemplar) has been developed based on the collector road connecting into this block generally at the point shown on the notified Stage 1 Chapter 8 North Halswell ODP. 6.4 Ms Reeves has discussed her rationale for the alignment along the common boundaries at paragraphs 4.2 to 4.7 of her rebuttal evidence. In my opinion, both alignment options have benefits and potential costs. As a compromise, the North Halswell ODP map in the Revised Proposal in Attachment A has been amended to more closely, although not in its entirety, follow the Stage 1 Chapter 8 notified indicative alignment. The collector roads now cross a number of different property owners' land. This revised alignment should not significantly impede individual property owners from developing their land holdings at different stages. It may however still require some negotiation between property owners to collaboratively develop those initial parts of these collector roads as they extend from William Brittan Drive and Milns Road, should they wish to develop at a similar stage. 6.5 Mr Brown and Ms Comfort have both noted that the narrative did not make reference to these two north to south collector roads. I have consequently included wording within the narrative to recognise their importance. 6.6 In paragraph 5.10 of Mr Brown's evidence he discusses the now agreed position reached with Council in regard to the green corridor associated with the Meadowlands Exemplar development (Area 1). I recognise the importance of this corridor as a focus for _1.docx 7

10 Page 10 of 286 this project and the green corridor has again (from the Stage 1 Chapter 8 notified ODP) been annotated on the ODP map. 6.7 At paragraph 5.12 of Mr Brown's evidence he recommends additional wording in relation to the Quarrymans Trail. Given that the Council is now of the position that the Sparks Road alignment is preferred for the Quarrymans Trail, I recommend that this be annotated on the ODP map and accept Mr Brown's additional wording in the narrative as to its exact positioning, subject to some minor formatting amendments. 6.8 Mr Milne has addressed Ms Seaton's objection to the Milns Road realignment requirement to improve the safety of the Milns/Sparks/Sutherlands Road intersection (refer to paragraph 4.2 of his evidence). I support the removal of this requirement on the landowner given it is an area network issue. 6.9 I also agree with Ms Seaton at her paragraph 30, that the density variations due to development constraints in clause 8.6.4D 2(a) currently presumes that the particular attributes of area 3 'will', limit its development capacity and therefore the density exemptions should apply, whereas the clause should more appropriates state that development capacity 'may' result in a lower density than the 15hh/ha requirement to be achieved in all CRPS GPAs. Different versions of the ODP narrative for all the ODPs, have used either wording, i.e. "will" or "may". It was my final position in the drafting of Revised Proposal 7 December, to use the word "will", this being in response to review comments receive from Ms McIntrye for the Crown to ensure the narrative was sufficiently directive Whilst it is my strong expectation that in these identified areas it will be very difficult or impracticable to achieve the 15hh/ha yield, I do agree with Ms Seaton that through careful design, engineering or other solutions, in some limited circumstances, it could be achieved. I have therefore amended the wording to "may" and have also done so for all the other ODPs. I have also aligned the _1.docx 8

11 Page 11 of 286 wording with regard to the staging, to align with the other ODPs as suggested by Ms Seaton in her paragraph 30 of her evidence. 7. SOUTH HALSWELL ODP AND RNN ZONING EVIDENCE OF DR ALMOND AND STATEMENT OF MR WOODFORD (#2314) EVIDENCE OF MR HEAD FOR KENNEDY'S BUSH ROAD NEIGHBOURHOOD ASSOCIATION (#2412) 7.1 Mr Kingsbury in his rebuttal evidence has responded to Dr Almond's evidence and Mr Woodford's statement on the suitability of the land due to risks from liquefaction. Mr Kingsbury has noted that the rules managing land development (Rule 5.6.1) will address technical information requirements for resource consents in the Liquefaction Management Area, which the South Halswell ODP area is within. I further note that there are mitigation options that may be appropriate and feasible to support residential development of the site (refer to paragraphs 3.6 and 3.7 of his rebuttal evidence). 7.2 The primary issue in my view is whether the known liquefaction risk, is sufficient grounds to retain this CRPS GPA as a rural zone, rather than to rezone for urban/residential purposes. I accept that without significant engineering the land will be unsuitable for development. However, as mitigation options are possible albeit that they may in some areas potentially prove to be financially infeasible, I continue to support the land for RNN rezoning. 7.3 I do however accept that the 15hh/ha density yield is unlikely to be achievable across all of the subject land. The definition of net density under the CRPS and proposed under the Revised Proposal, excludes land with geotechnical constraints, from the area the density calculation is based upon. Notwithstanding this, I recommend that a reference to these potential density yield limitations be added to within the South Halswell ODP narrative, and I have included this in the Revised Proposal in Attachment A _1.docx 9

12 Page 12 of 286 This change will also go some way to achieving the desired landscape outcomes as sought by Mr Head in his evidence, specifically in his conclusion in paragraph 8.1 of his evidence. 8. SOUTH WEST HALSWELL ODP MS STEWART FOR HOLISTIC EDUCATION TRUST (#2127) 8.1 I accept Ms Stewart's request to include words within the ODP narrative that effectively recognise that there may be interim infrastructure solutions to overcome staging constraints to land development. I do not wholly consider that these additional words are needed as such matters can be addressed at the subdivision consent stage through appropriate conditions. Nonetheless I have included some additional wording in Appendix Staging, stating that there may be interim infrastructure solutions. 9. UPPER STYX ODP EVIDENCE OF MS PATRICIA HARTE FOR SUMMERSET GROUPS HOLDINGS LIMITED (#2251) 9.1 Ms Harte has highlighted my misreading of the relief sought by Summerset Groups Holdings Limited, namely to rezone four lots (129, 131, 133 and 135 Cavendish Road) as RNN rather than Residential Suburban (as notified in Stage 1 Residential Chapter 14). I agree with Ms Harte that RNN is a more appropriate zone and will better achieve an integrated approach to the development of this land as part of the Upper Styx ODP _1.docx 10

13 Page 13 of HENDERSON BASIN ODP EVIDENCE OF WARREN RICHARD LEWIS AND ANDREW JAMES TISCH FOR CASHMERE FIELDS (#2871/FS #2727) AND CASHMERE PARK TRUST SUBMISSION (#2380/FS #2728) 10.1 Mr Norton has review Mr Lewis' evidence (refer to 6.1 to 6.12 of his rebuttal evidence) and maintains his position that the level of development proposed by Mr Lewis will potentially give rise to significant stormwater management issues. For the reasons provided in my evidence in chief I (refer to paragraph 21.12) and on the basis of Mr Norton's continued position, I only support in part the submission of Cashmere Fields and Cashmere Park Trust (that being as shown on Option 1 Hendersons Basin ODP). Sarah-Jane Oliver 5 January _1.docx 11

14 Page 14 of 286 ATTACHMENT A: RNN REVISED PROPOSAL 5 JANUARY _1.docx

15 Page 15 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A CHAPTER 8 Subdivision, Development and Earthworks Key: The following text is the Revised Proposal for the Subdivision, Development and Earthworks Proposal as it relates to the Residential New Neighbourhood zone. It has been amended as a result of formal and informal mediation between the Council and submitters. Those amendments are shown in underlined in black text (for inserted text) and struck through black text (for deleted text). The Revised Proposal has been updated as a result of the Council's evidence in chief. Those amendments are shown in underlined red text (for inserted text) and struck through red text (for deleted text). Definitions are shown in underlined green text. The Revised Proposal has been updated as a result of the Council's Rebuttal Evidence dated 5 January Those amendments are shown in underlined purple text (for inserted text) and struck through purple text (for deleted text). 1

16 Page 16 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A CHAPTER 8 Subdivision, Development and Earthworks 8.1 Objectives and Policies Subdivision and Development Clarifications: (a) (b) the objectives and policies contained in other chapters, including zone chapters, the Transport chapter, the Natural Hazards chapter and the Hazardous Substances and Contaminated Land chapter, are relevant in addition to those below. In the Residential New Neighbourhood Zone: (i) The objectives and policies referred to in clause (a) apply: (ii) Objectives and (and all associated policies) in this chapter do not apply. (iii) Objective (and all associated policies) apply to subdivision. (iv) Objective (and all associated policies) apply to subdivision and to land use and development activities (in the latter cases due to the effect of Objective and Policy in Chapter 14) Objective - Infrastructure and Transport This objective and the following associated policies apply [but are not reproduced here] Policy A Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy (Identification of infrastructure constraints) (Availability of infrastructure) (Transport and access) (Water supply) (Stormwater disposal) (Sewage disposal) (Trade wastes) (Electricity) (Telecommunications) (Construction and design of infrastructure) (Adverse effects on infrastructure) Objective Comprehensive Subdivision, use and development in the Residential New Neighbourhood Zone a. Co-ordinated, sustainable and efficient subdivision, use and development is enabled in the Residential New Neighbourhood Zone. 2

17 Page 17 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A Policy Outline Development Plans a. Outline Development Plans (which comprise both plans and narrative) describe context and provide guidance on the outcomes sought as well as specify development requirements for the Residential New Neighbourhood Zone including, to the extent relevant: i. Intended outcomes including sense of place, pattern, scale and intensity of development. ii. Principal through roads, connections with surrounding road networks, relevant infrastructure services and areas for possible future development. iii. Land required for community facilities or schools. iv. Parks and other land for recreation. v. Land required for stormwater treatment, retention and drainage paths. vi. Land reserved or otherwise set aside from development, including for environmental, historic heritage, natural hazard or landscape protection or enhancement reasons. vii. Pedestrian walkways, cycle ways and public transport routes both within and adjoining the areas to be developed. viii. Staging requirements that give consideration to the provision, funding, implementation and operation of for new and upgraded infrastructure that will facilitate staged development of the area and will guide Council s Long Term Plan and Capital Works Programme processes infrastructure planning processes of the Council and other network providers. b. Subdivision, use and development is consistent with the development requirements in the relevant Outline Development Plan, or otherwise achieves similar or better outcomes, and any interim subdivision, use and development does not compromise the timely implementation of, or outcomes sought by, the Outline Development Plan Policy Comprehensive Residential Development Land Use and Subdivision Applications a. Comprehensive residential developments land use and subdivision applications which are consistent with the relevant Outline Development Plan are encouraged as a means of achieving coordinated, sustainable and efficient development outcomes Policy Development Density a. In residential development areas, a minimum net density of 15 households per hectare shall be achieved when averaged across the whole of the residential development area within the relevant Outline Development Plan, except: i. in the Residential New Neighbourhood (Prestons) Zone where the minimum net density is between 13 and 15 households per hectare; and 3

18 Page 18 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A ii. in areas shown on an Outline Development Plan as being subject to development constraints where either an alternative minimum net density may be specified in the Outline Development Plan or else no minimum applies. The lost density is not required to be offset. b. Except as provided for in (a) above, any subdivision, use and development which results in a residential net density lower than 15 households per hectare (or results in a density lower than that specified on or in any Outline Development Plan) shall demonstrate, through the use of legal mechanisms as appropriate, how the lost density will be offset elsewhere in the Outline Development Plan area such that the residential net density required across the whole Outline Development Plan area can still be achieved. c. Except as provided for in (a) and (b) above, a proposal for subdivision, use and development which results in a lower density than that shown on the relevant part of the Outline Development Plan, excluding any areas identified on the Outline Development Plan as having greater development constraints, will result in other owners of greenfield (undeveloped) land within the Outline Development Plan area being identified as affected parties (where they have not given written approval). d. Higher density housing is located to support, and have ready access to, commercial centres, community facilities, public transport and open space; and to support well-connected walkable communities is encouraged Policy Neighbourhood Quality and Design a. Subdivision, use and development will: i. contribute to a strong sense of place, and a coherent, functional and safe neighbourhood; ii. contribute to a range of lot sizes and dimensions; iii. enable diversity of housing typologies; iv. retain and support the relationship to, and where possible enhance, recreational, heritage and ecological features and values; and v. achieve a high level of amenity Policy Public open space a. Subdivision will ensure that, where appropriate, a public open space network is provided which: i. is accessible and safe and provides for a variety of recreation needs, opportunities for community interaction and access to heritage, natural and community places; ii. incorporates and protects landscape and natural features; iii. provides amenity to complement areas of higher development density. 4

19 Page 19 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A Policy Infrastructure servicing for developments a. Developments are serviced with all required infrastructure in an effective and efficient manner Policy Integration and connectivity a. Ensure well integrated places, infrastructure, movement networks and activity. b. Ensure the sensitive treatment of interfaces between new and existing developments. c. Avoid significant adverse effects and remedy or mitigate other adverse effects on existing businesses, rural activities or infrastructure. d. Provide efficient and safe, high quality, barrier-free, multi-modal connections within a development to surrounding areas, and to local facilities and services, with emphasis at local level placed on walking, cycling and public transport Policy Local centres location, layout and scale a. Opportunities are provided for well-designed and appropriately located and sized local centres to service residents and visitors Policy Nga kaupapa / protection and enhancement of sites, values and other taonga of significance to tangata whenua Ensure: a. Protection of sites, values and other taonga of cultural significance to Ngāi Tahu using culturally appropriate methods. b. Identification and utilisation of opportunities to enhance sites, values and other taonga of cultural significance to Ngāi Tahu. c. Protection of the relationship of tangata whenua with freshwater, including cultural wellbeing and customary use opportunities Policy Separation of incompatible activities a. Avoid adverse effects (including reverse sensitivity) on critical and strategic infrastructure. b. Avoid significant adverse effects and remedy or mitigate other adverse effects on existing businesses, rural activities or other infrastructure. 5

20 Page 20 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A 8.2 Rules Administration The following rules apply: Written approval and non-notification Infrastructure design standard Development and financial contributions Staging of subdivision Suitability for proposed land use Standards for specific zones Servicing constraints Written approval and non-notification (1) Unless stated otherwise in this chapter: (a) application for resource consent under the subdivision rules as a controlled or restricted discretionary activity will not require written approvals and shall not be limited or publicly notified; (b) for any other application for resource consent under the subdivision rules - except as set out in (c) below - the Council may publicly notify the application or require the written approval of other persons. Where the subdivision seeks access to a State Highway, the written approval of NZ Transport Agency will be required. (c) any application for consent under the subdivision rules in the circumstances below (other than for non complying subdivision activities) shall not require the written consent of other persons and shall be non notified: (i) (i) under Section (Highsted); or under Section (Highfield) where: (A) the application is required as a result of non compliance with Rule RD1; or (B) application is required under Rule D8; or (C) any land being subdivided is within 25m of a property boundary of land not owned by the applicant (other than land owned by the Council or the NZTA) and being within the Residential New Neighbourhood (Highfield) Zone; or (D) the application is required as a result of non compliance with Rule RD5(7). 6

21 Page 21 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A Rules applying to Residential New Neighbourhood Zone Controlled Activities The following rules apply [but are not reproduced here] Rule C1 Rule C2 Rule C3 Rule C4 Boundary adjustments and amalgamations Conversion of tenure Alteration of cross leases/unit titles etc Subdivision for access, utilities, roads, reserves Amended Rule C5 and new Rule C6 as below: Activity Activity standards Matters of control C5 Subdivision in any zone other than the Residential New Neighbourhood Zone where the subdivision is not in accordance with one or more of the flexible elements shown on any relevant Outline Development Plan. C6 Subdivision in the Residential New Neighbourhood Zone Activity standards (1) - (11) (9) and (142). Where there is a relevant Outline Development Plan: all fixed elements shown on that plan must be complied with. In the Industrial General Southwest Hornby Zone, Activity standard (120) also applies. In the Industrial General Wilmers Road zone, disposal of wastewater shall be via the Christchurch City Council reticulated sanitary sewage disposal system. Refer A (4) and, where relevant, (5). Refer A Restricted Discretionary Activities The following rules apply [but are not reproduced here] Rule RD1 Rule RD3 Rule RD4 Boundary adjustments/amalgamations not complying with C1 Conversion of tenure (repair/rebuild multi-unit complexes) Alteration of cross leases/unit titles (repair/rebuilds) 7

22 Page 22 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A Rule RD5 Rule RD6 Rule RD7 Subdivision in a floor level/fill management area Subdivision within transmission corridor Subdivision within transmission distribution corridor (network utility) Amended Rule RD2 and new Rule RD2A as below: Activity Activity standards Matters of discretion RD2 Subdivision in any zone other than the Residential New Neighbourhood Zone not complying with C5 (except as specified at or ) RD2A Subdivision in the Residential New Neighbourhood Zone not complying with C6 N/A The matters for control at (4) and, where relevant (5), and the relevant matter of discretion in relation to the non-compliance as follows: A(1) Refer A Consistency with Outline Development Plan A(2) Residential density net Discretionary Activities New rule D3 applies: Activity D3 Subdivision in the Residential New Neighbourhood Zone where C6, RD2A or NC1 does not apply Non-Complying Activities The following rule applies [but is not reproduced here] Rule NC1 Subdivision not complying with RD6/RD7 (transmission and distribution corridors) 8

23 Page 23 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A Activity standards Activity standards Standard (1) Minimum net area and dimension - delete clause (e) Standard (7) Water supply - delete clause (c) relating to North Halswell and South Masham Residential New Neighbourhood Zone. Standard (8) Wastewater disposal - delete clause (d) and (e) which both relate to Residential New Neighbourhood Zone A Standards applying in the Residential New Neighbourhood Zone (1) Consistency with Outline Development Plan The subdivision shall provide for the development, reserves, infrastructure and other elements as shown or described as development requirements in the relevant Outline Development Plan (which comprise both plans and narrative). (2) Residential net density (a) The subdivision shall achieve a minimum net density within residential development areas of 15 households per hectare, except as provided for in (b), (c), (d) or (e)or (f) below. in areas shown on an Outline Development Plan as being subject to development constraints. Alternatively, where an Outline Development Plan specifies (on plan or in narrative) different minimum net density requirements for any part of the land concerned, then it shall achieve the specified net density. (b) (b) (c) Within the Prestons ODP area (Appendix 8.25) the minimum net density is to be between 13 and 15 households per hectare. Within areas shown on an Outline Development Plan as being subject to development constraints either an alternative minimum net density may be specified in the Outline Development Plan or else no minimum net site density applies. Subdivision in the following Outline Development Plan areas shall achieve different Different minimum net density requirements where specific density areas are defined in the Outline Development Plan or are to be defined in the following ODP areas on an approved subdivision consent: i. Prestons ODP - Appendix ii. Wigram ODP - Appendix iii. Yaldhurst ODP - Appendix

24 Page 24 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A (d) Where the minimum net density 15 households per hectare (or other ODP-required density) is not achieved, the developer may identify higher densities at nominated locations within the ODP area so as to comply with the overall minimum net density of 15 households per hectare (or other ODP-required density) provided: (i) (ii) there is written approval legal agreement from the owner of the land nominated for future higher density (if not the applicant); relevant landowners and a legal instrument is proposed that is enforceable by Council that will ensure that subdivision and land use cannot occur below the specified higher density at the nominated locations; and; and such agreement is submitted to the Council. (iii) Where the land nominated for future higher density is included as part of a subdivision application, the application will be assessed as either a controlled activity under Rule C6 or as a restricted discretionary activity under Rule RD2A, as applicable; or (iii) Where the land nominated for future higher density is not included as part of a subdivision application, the application will be assessed as a discretionary activity under Rule D3. (e) Where land nominated for density higher than 15 households per hectare in accordance with (e) above is proposed to be subdivided, the subdivision shall achieve the density required under the legal instrument referred to in clause (e)(ii). (3) Land area for subdivision Minimum lot size (residential lots) (a) Subdivisions not associated with comprehensive residential development: The land subject to the subdivision application shall have the following minimum area: (i) 4 hectares (for controlled activities) (ii) No minimum applies (for restricted discretionary activities) (b) Subdivision associated with comprehensive residential development: Where the subdivision is for a comprehensive residential development where land use consent is being sought concurrently, the site being comprehensively developed and subdivided shall have the following minimum net site area: (i) 6,000m 2 (for controlled activities) (ii) No minimum applies (for restricted discretionary activities) (iii) No minimum applies where the subdivision is to give effect to a comprehensive residential development where land use consent has already been obtained. 10

25 Page 25 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A (4) Minimum lot size (residential lots) Creation of lots: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) Corner lots shall have a minimum net site area of 400m². All other lots shall have a minimum net site area of 300m². Except that 20% of lots in the subdivision may be m² in size. The standards in (a) to (c) above do not apply in respect of comprehensive residential developments where subdivision and land use consents are sought concurrently (refer Chapter 14). The standards in (a) to (c) above do not apply to rear lane serviced lots in the Yaldhurst ODP (Appendix ). A minimum net site area of 250m 2 applies to such lots. In the following Outline Development Plan areas, Tthe standards in (a) to (c) above do not apply to Density A and B areas that are defined either in the Outline Development Plan or on an approved subdivision consent. All lots shall comply with the size requirements specified below: for the following Outline Development Plan areas: i. Prestons ODP - Appendix a. Density A lots shall have a minimum net site area of 200m 2 and a maximum net site area of 250m 2 b. Density B lots shall have a minimum net site area of 450m 2 and a maximum net site area of 500m 2 ii. Wigram ODP - Appendix a. Density A lots shall have a minimum net site area of 200m 2 and a maximum net site area of 250m 2 b. Density B lots shall have a minimum net site area of 250m 2 and a maximum net site area of 450m 2 iii. Yaldhurst ODP - Appendix a. Density A lots shall have a minimum net site area of 250m 2 (4)(5) Minimum lot width The standards below do not apply in respect of comprehensive developments where subdivision and land use consents are sought concurrently (refer Chapter 14). (a) Corner lots shall have a minimum lot width of 14m on road boundaries (each boundary) except where (b) applies. 11

26 Page 26 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A (b) (c) (d) (e) Lots for terrace developments shall have a minimum width of 7m except for corner sites and end sites which shall have a minimum width of 10m. All residential lots with a boundary to public open space shall have a minimum frontage to that space of 10m except mid-block terrace lots which shall have a minimum frontage of 7m. All other lots, other than access or rear lots, shall have a minimum lot width of 10m on road boundaries. In the following Outline Development Plan areas, the standards in (a) to (d) above do not apply and there shall be no minimum lot width for to Density A and B areas defined on an approved subdivision consent for the following Outline Development Plan areas: i. Prestons ODP - Appendix ii. Wigram ODP - Appendix iii. Yaldhurst ODP - Appendix (5)(6) Maximum cul-de-sac length (a) Where there is a pedestrian connection from the cul-de-sac head to an adjacent street the maximum cul-de-sac length shall be 150m. (b) All other cul-de-sacs shall have a maximum length of 100m. (6)(7) Road frontage to public reserves (a) The minimum road frontage to a public reserve to which the public has a general right of access (excluding local purpose reserves for walkways) shall be 25% of the length of the reserve perimeter. (7)(8) Reserve width (a) Reserves to be vested in Council for utility, pedestrian access or stormwater conveyance purposes shall have a minimum width of 8m. (8)(9) Walkable block size (a) Any block containing residential lots shall have a publicly accessible maximum perimeter length of 800m. 12

27 Page 27 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A (9)(10) Application of standards in The following standards in do not apply in the Residential New Neighbourhood Zone: (1) Minimum net area and dimension (10) Additional standards for south-west Hornby (12) Radiocommunications The following standards in apply in the Residential New Neighbourhood Zone: [but are not reproduced here] (2) Allotments with existing or proposed buildings (3) Access (4) Roads (5) Service lanes, cycleways and pedestrian accessways (6) Esplanade reserve, strip or additional land (7) Water supply (8) Wastewater disposal (9) Stormwater Matters for control [No changes needed to give effect to these RNN Zone proposals] A Matters for Control in the Residential New Neighbourhood Zone The following matters of control in apply [but are not reproduced here] (1) Boundary adjustments and amalgamations (2) Conversion of tenure, alteration of cross-leases and unit titles (3) Allotments for access, utilities, roads and reserves In addition, the following matters of control apply: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) Property access Esplanade reserves, strips or additional land Servicing Provision of land for open space and recreation Easements Heritage and natural environment 13

28 Page 28 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) Natural and other hazards Subdivision layout, design and provision for lot sizes that enable a diversity of housing typologies Subdivision density and the means of achieving overall Outline Development Plan densities as required by Policy , including the adequacy of any legal mechanism proposed to give effect to a density transfer or density staging proposal. Integration and connectivity between adjoining landholdings and the wider neighbourhood Location, orientation, size and shape of any future development lot In exercising control over the above matters, regard will be had to the matters of discretion in A Matters for discretion Delete the following matters for discretion: (13) Compliance with Outline Development Plan - delete only clauses (a), (b) and (g). (15) Residential New Neighbourhood Zone A Matters for discretion in Residential New Neighbourhood Zone For restricted discretionary activities, discretion is reserved over: (a) the matters specified in A (matters of control) and; (b) the effect of non-compliance with the relevant activity standard in A The following assessment criteria will be used, as applicable, for the consideration of applications for restricted discretionary activities to the extent that Council has reserved its discretion, and will also be used for the consideration of applications for discretionary and non-complying activities. Guidance as to the outcomes sought may be found in the Christchurch City Council s Residential New Neighbourhood Design Guide. Whether the subdivision: Integration, context and placemaking (a) (b) (c) integrates with the existing context including retention of existing natural and built features, adjacent patterns of development and potential visual and physical connections; responds to and complements the design and layout of adjacent blocks, streets and open spaces; provides for adjoining land within the Outline Development Plan to be developed in accordance with Residential New Neighbourhood standards and the Outline Development Plan; 14

29 Page 29 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A (d) contributes to the sense of place envisaged in the Outline Development Plan, drawn from its context and delivered through the block, street and open space layout, to the configuration of lots and elements of the open space. Subdivision design (including provision for range of housing typologies) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) provides lots that will enable diversity of housing typologies; provides lots that are orientated to provide for solar gain; distributes lots for higher density building typologies to support community and commercial facilities and public transport, and create a critical mass of activity and focus for development, and provide a logical and legible development form; locates larger lots on corner sites to provide for larger scale building typologies to assist neighbourhood legibility; has dimensions and orientation which will provide for efficient vehicle access and parking that is safe for pedestrians and cyclists, and that does not compromise the quality of current or future public or private space; provides lots that retain the central areas of blocks for open space or shared vehicle accesses; provides a lot pattern that will promote complementary housing typologies to protect the privacy and outlook of adjacent sites and existing residential properties; provides a lot pattern that will promote a consistent built interface with the street and minimises the use of rear lots. Note: In exercising the above discretion, guidance as to the outcomes sought for the subsequent development that will follow subdivision may be found in , Residential Design Principles. Movement networks (m) (n) (o) (p) provides for a comprehensive network of vehicle, cycle and pedestrian routes that provide, maintain or enhance safe and efficient physical and visual links within the neighbourhood and to surrounding neighbourhoods; includes road widths which are sufficient for the current and any identified future function of the road; includes road design which contributes toward a speed environment that is compatible with street function and adjacent land uses; minimises the use of rights of way. Public spaces (including interaction between private and public spaces) (q) provides public open space that can incorporate large scale tree planting, and low impact design features; 15

30 Page 30 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A (r) (s) provides lots that enable a high level of visual interaction with the street and other public open spaces, without unnecessary visual barriers. promotes a cohesive street scene and neighbourhood; General (t) will be adequately serviced by infrastructure with reference to the matters in (11); (u) takes into account the Christchurch City Council s Residential New Neighbourhood Design Guide. Amendments to Definitions chapter Add the following threetwo definitions: Net density Is the number of lots or household units per hectare (whichever is the greater). The area (ha) includes land for: (i) (ii) (iii) Residential purposes, including all open space and on-site parking associated with residential development; Local roads and roading corridors, including pedestrian and cycleways, but excluding State Highways and major arterial roads: Local (neighbourhood) reserves. The area (ha) excludes land that is: (iv) Stormwater retention and treatment areas; (v) Geotechnically constrained (such as land subject to subsidence or inundation); (vi) Set aside to protect significant ecological, cultural, historic heritage or landscape values; (vii) Set aside for esplanade reserves or access strips that form part of a larger regional or sub-regional reserve network; (viii) For local community services and retail facilities, or for schools, hospitals or other district, regional or subregional facilities. (ix) Identified on an Outline Development Plan as an area that is subject to development constraints. Outline Development Plan Means a plan and associated narrative description that is contained (or will be contained) in Chapter 8 and which guides the form and staging, where applicable, of subdivision and development in a Greenfield Priority Area. Comprehensive residential development In the Residential New Neighbourhood Zone, means a development of three or more residential units which are designed in an integrated manner and will be, or have been, consented and constructed in an integrated manner (staged development is not precluded). Comprehensive residential development may include a concurrent or subsequent subdivision component. 16

31 Page 31 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A Chapter 14 Residential Key: The following text is the Revised Proposal for the Residential Proposal as it relates to the Residential New Neighbourhood zone. It has been amended as a result of formal and informal mediation between the Council and submitters. Those amendments are shown in underlined in black text (for inserted text) and struck through black text (for deleted text). The Revised Proposal has been updated as a result of the Council's evidence in chief. Those amendments are shown in underlined red text (for inserted text) and struck through red text (for deleted text). Definitions are shown in underlined green text. The Revised Proposal has been updated to achieve consistency with the Panel s decision on the Stage 1 Residential Proposal and these changes are shown in underlined Blue text (for inserted text) and struck through blue text (for deleted text). At this stage the provisions have not been renumbered to match the Stage 1 Residential proposal as the evidence of all parties refers to the numbering contained in Council s 7 December proposal attached to its primary evidence. It is considered that it may be confusing to change numbering at this stage. Alteration to numbering should be easily achieved at time of issue of the Panel s Residential New Neighbourhood Zone decision or as a consequential change. The Revised Proposal has been updated as a result of the Council's Rebuttal Evidence dated 5 January Those amendments are shown in underlined purple text (for inserted text) and struck through purple text (for deleted text). 1

32 Page 32 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A Chapter 14 Residential 14.1 Objectives and Policies Residential The following existing objectives (and associated policies) apply to land use activities in the Residential New Neighbourhood Zone: Objective Objective Objective Objective Objective Objective (Housing supply) (Short term residential recovery needs) (Strategic infrastructure) (High quality residential environment) (Non-residential activities) (Redevelopment of brownfield sites) Objective Residential New Neighbourhood Zone a. Land use activities and developments in the Residential New Neighbourhood Zone are consistent with the objective contained in Section of the Plan Policy Residential New Neighbourhood Zone a. Land use activities and developments in the Residential New Neighbourhood Zone are consistent with the policies contained in Section of the Plan 14.6 Rules Residential New Neighbourhood Zone How to use the rules The rules that apply to activities in the Residential New Neighbourhood Zone are contained in: a. The Activity Status tables, Activity Specific Standards in ; and b. The Built Form Standards in The Activity Status Tables and Standards in the following chapters (where relevant): 5. Natural hazards; 6. General Rules and procedures; 7. Transport; 8. Subdivision, Development and Earthworks; 2

33 Page 33 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A 11. Utilities, Energy and Infrastructure; and 12. Hazardous Substances and Contaminated Land Activity status table Where activity status rules in this section include activity specific standards which conflict with any development requirements specified in an applicable Outline Development Plan then the development requirements in the Outline Development Plan shall apply Permitted Activities In the Residential New Neighbourhood Zone the activities listed below are permitted activities if they comply with any Activity Specific Standards set out in this table and the Built Form Standards in Activities may also be controlled, restricted discretionary, discretionary, non-complying or prohibited as specified in Activity P1 Residential activity and residential unit. Activity specific standards P2 Bed and breakfast activity. There shall be: a. No more than one heavy vehicle shall be stored on the site of the residential activity. b. Any motor vehicles and/or boats dismantled, repaired or stored on the site of the residential activity shall be owned by people who live on the same site. a. a maximum of six guests at any one time; b. no guest given accommodation for more than 90 consecutive days. c. at least one owner of the residential unit residing permanently on site. P3 Care of non-resident children within a residential unit in return for monetary payment to the carer. P4 Relocation of a building. NIL There shall be: a. a maximum of four non-resident children being cared for in return for monetary payment at any one time; and b. at least one carer present who resides permanently within the residential unit. P5 Home occupation. The home occupation shall limit: a. The gross floor area of the building plus the area used for outdoor storage areas to less than 40m²; b. The number of FTE employed persons who reside permanently elsewhere than on the site to two; 3

34 Page 34 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A Activity Activity specific standards c. Any retailing shall be limited to the sale of good grown or produced on the site or internet-based sales where no customer visits occur; d. The hours of operation when the site is open to visitors, clients and deliveries shall be limited to: i Monday to Friday; and ii Saturday, Sunday and public holidays; e. visitor or staff parking areas to outside the road boundary setback; and f. outdoor advertising to a maximum of 2m². P5A Older person s housing unit a. Any older person s housing unit shall have a maximum gross floor area of 120m 2 P5B Student hostels owned or operated by a secondary education activity or tertiary education and research activity containing up to 6 bedrooms. a. Nil P6 Pre-school facility and activity. The facility shall: P7 Health Care Facility and heath care activity a. only locate on sites with a frontage and primary entrance to a minor arterial or collector road where right turn offset, either formal or informal is available; b. only occupy a gross floor area of less than 200m²; c. limit outdoor play areas and facilities to those that comply with the Group 1 acoustic standard for residential zones; d. limit outdoor advertising to a maximum of 2m²; d. limit the hours of operation when the site is open to visitors, clients and deliveries shall be limited to: i Monday to Friday; and ii Saturday, Sunday and public holidays; e. only locate on sites where any residential activity on an adjoining front site, or front site separated by an access, with frontage to the same road, is left with at least one residential neighbour. That neighbour shall be on the adjoining front site, or front site separated by an access, and have frontage to the same road; and f. only locate on residential blocks where there are no more than two non-residential activities already within that block. Note: See Figure 1. The facility shall: a. only locate on sites with a frontage and primary entrance to a minor arterial or collector road where 4

35 Page 35 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A Activity P8 Veterinary Care Facility and veterinary activity. P9 Education Activity and education activity. Activity specific standards right turn offset, either formal or informal is available; b. only occupy a gross floor area of building of less than 300m²; c. limit outdoor advertising to a maximum of 2m²; c. limit the hours of operation when the site is open to patients, or clients and deliveries to between the hours of The facility shall: a. only locate on sites with a frontage and primary entrance to a minor arterial or collector road where right turn offset, either formal or informal is available; b. only occupy a gross floor area of less than 200m²; c. limit outdoor advertising to a maximum of 2m²; c. limit the hours of operation when the site is open to patients, or clients and deliveries to between the hours of ; d. only locate on sites where any residential activity on an adjoining front site, or front site separated by an access, with frontage to the same road, is left with at least one residential neighbour. That neighbour shall be on the adjoining front site, or front site separated by an access, and have frontage to the same road; e. only locate on residential blocks where there are no more than two non-residential activities already within that block; and f. limit the boarding of animals on the site to four. Note: See Figure 1. The facility shall: b. only locate on sites with a frontage and primary entrance to a minor arterial or collector road where right turn offset, either formal or informal is available; c. only occupy a gross floor area of less than 200m²; d. limit outdoor advertising to a maximum of 2m²; d. limit the hours of operation when the site is open to students, clients and deliveries shall be limited to: i Monday to Saturday; and ii. Closed Sunday and public holidays; e. only locate on sites where any residential activity on an adjoining front site, or front site separated by an access, with frontage to the same road, is left with at least one residential neighbour. That neighbour shall be on the adjoining front site, or front site separated by an access, and have frontage to the same road; f. only locate on residential blocks where there are no more than two non-residential activities already within that block; and Note: See Figure 1. 5

36 Page 36 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A Activity P10 Temporary military or emergency service training facilities. P11 Market gardens, community gardens, and garden lots. Activity specific standards a. the activity shall have a duration of no more than 90 consecutive days. NIL NIL P12 Storage of heavy vehicles. a. No more than one vehicle shall be stored on the site. P13 Dismantling, repair, or storage of motor vehicles and boats. P14 Places of assembly. The facility shall: P15 Community corrections facilities. The facility shall: P16 Community welfare facilities. The facility shall: P17 P18 Spiritual facilities and spiritual activity. Emergency Services Facilities and emergency service activities. a. The vehicles and/or boats shall be owned by the persons living on the site. a. only locate on sites with a frontage and primary entrance to a minor arterial or collector road where right turn offset, either formal or informal is available; b. only occupy a gross floor area of less than 200m²; c. limit outdoor advertising to a maximum of 2m²; c. limit the hours of operation when the site is open to visitors, clients and deliveries to between the hours of ; d. only locate on sites where any residential activity on an adjoining front site, or front site separated by an access, with frontage to the same road, is left with at least one residential neighbour. That neighbour shall be on the adjoining front site, or front site separated by an access, and have frontage to the same road; e. only locate on residential blocks where there are no more than two non-residential activities already within that block; and f. entertainment facilities shall be closed Sunday and public holidays. Note: See Figure 1 a. limit the hours of operation when the site is open to clients and deliveries to between the hours of ; and b. limit signage to a maximum of 2m². a. limit the hours of operation when the site is open to clients and deliveries to between the hours of ; and b. limit signage to a maximum of 2m². The facility shall: a. limit the hours of operation to between the hours of NIL 6

37 Page 37 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A Activity P19 Commercial local centre identified on an approved subdivision consent within an Outline Development Plan. Activity specific standards a. A local centre shall not exceed 2000m 2 in gross floor area. b. The rules in the Commercial Local Zone in Chapter c. The rules in do not apply. P20 Rural activities as permitted in the Rural Urban Fringe Zone rule Permitted activities - Activity specific standards. a. Rural activities shall comply with the following standards of the Rural Urban Fringe Zone: i Maximum building height ii. iii. iv Minimum building setback from road boundaries Minimum building setback from internal boundaries Maximum site coverage b. The rules in do not apply. P21 Show homes The hours of operation when the site is open to visitors. clients and deliveries shall be limited to: i Monday to Friday; and ii Saturday, Sunday and public holidays; Figure 1 7

38 Page 38 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A Controlled Activities The activities listed below are controlled activities if they comply with the Built Form Standards in Activity Activity standards Matters of control C1 Show homes Refer Notification: Any application arising from this rule shall not need written approvals and shall not be limited or publicly notified. Refer 14.8A Matters of control in Residential New Neighbourhood Zone C1 Retirement villages The activity shall achieve the following built form standards: Building height Site coverage Daylight recession planes Minimum setbacks from internal boundaries and railway lines Landscaping in the road boundary setback Fencing in the road boundary setback Road boundary building setback Water supply for fire fighting Consistency with Outline Development Plan Refer 14.8A Matters of control in Residential New Neighbourhood Zone Notification: Any application arising from this rule shall not need written approvals and shall not be limited or publicly notified. C2 Comprehensive residential developments where land use consent only or where land use and subdivision consents sought concurrently Only the following standards in apply: (Building height) (Site coverage) (Daylight recession planes) development site perimeter boundaries only The net site area for the development shall be a minimum of 6,000m 2. Refer 14.8A Matters of control in Residential New Neighbourhood Zone 8

39 Page 39 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A Activity Activity standards Matters of control Note: For the subdivision component of comprehensive developments, the standards in Chapter 8, Subdivision, Development and Earthworks also apply. C3 Works Wwithin the Awatea ODP area - Tangata Whenua layer diagram Notification: Any application arising from this rule shall not be publicly notified. Works to develop or redevelop any of the sites marked as controlled on the tangata whenua layer diagram where a cultural assessment has been supplied with resource consent application. i. Matters arising from Ensuring consultation has been undertaken with appropriate tangata whenua representatives in the design phase of the works and preparation of the cultural assessment ii. The means of incorporating Appropriate recognition has been given to the findings of the cultural assessment in the design and implementation of the works iii. Ensuring appropriate recognition has been given to tthe development requirements set out in the Awatea ODP Restricted Discretionary Activities The activities listed below are restricted discretionary activities. Discretion to grant or decline consent and impose conditions is restricted to the matters of discretion set out in Section 14.9 as referenced in the following table. Activity RD1 RD2 Residential units (including any sleep outs) containing more than six bedrooms in total. Student hostels owned or operated by a secondary or tertiary education and research activity containing less than six seven to nine bedrooms. The Council s discretion shall be limited to the following matters: a. Scale of activity a. Traffic generation and access safety a. Scale of activity

40 Page 40 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A Activity RD3 Creation of stormwater drainage ponding areas within 3km of the Christchurch International Airport runways. The Council s discretion shall be limited to the following matters: a. Stormwater ponding areas within 3km of Christchurch International Airport RD5 RD6 RD7 RD8 Notification: Any application arising from this rule will not require the written approval of any entity except the Christchurch International Airport Limited and shall not be publicly notified. Limited notification if required shall only be to the Christchurch International Airport Limited. Retirement Villages not complying with the activity specific standards under Rule C12. Convenience activities where: 1. the site is located on the corner of minor arterial road that intersects with either a minor arterial or collector road; 2. the total area occupied by retailing on the site is no more than 40 50m² public floor area; 3. the activity does not include the sale of alcohol; 4. outdoor advertising is limited to no more than 2m² and located within the road setback; 5. the hours of operation when the site is open to business visitors or clients are limited to ; and 6. no on-site parking area for visitors service purposes is provided. Comprehensive residential developments where land use and subdivision consents sought concurrently that do not meet the standards in C3C2. Any application arising from this rule as a result of non-compliance with the development net site area standard in Rule C23 shall not be publicly notified. Except where (b), or (c) or (d) applies, building height of between 8m and 11m on all sites not created by a comprehensive land use and subdivision process. Any application arising from this rule will not be publicly notified. a. Retirement Villages a. Scale of activity b. Traffic generation, access and safety c. Non-residential hours of operation a. The effect of non-compliance with the relevant standard in b. Residential design principles c. Site density and coverage d. Impacts on neighbouring property a. Comprehensive development a. Residential design principles (2) to (7) b. Impacts on neighbouring property

41 Page 41 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A Activity RD9 Non-compliance with site coverage standards in The Council s discretion shall be limited to the following matters: a. Site density and coverage RD10 Any application arising from this rule will not be publicly notified. Except where (c) and (d) applies, site coverage on all sites not created by a comprehensive land use and subdivision process of over 40% on lots with a net site area of 300m 2 and over, and over 45% on lots with a net area of 299m 2 and under. Non-compliance with Outdoor living space standards in a. Outdoor Living Space RD11 Any application arising from this rule will not require written approvals and shall not be publicly or limited notified. Non-compliance with landscaping standard ( ); fencing standard ( ); parking areas standard ( ); garages standard ( ); (ground floor habitable space and overlooking standard ( ); service storage standard ( ); minimum unit size standard ( ) As relevant to the non-compliance: a. Street scene road boundary, building setback, front doors, fencing and planting b. Service storage and waste management spaces c. Minimum unit size RD12 RD13 Notification: Any application arising from this rule will not require written approvals and shall not be publicly or limited notified. Non-compliance with setback from internal boundaries standards ( a e) Notification: Any application arising from this rule will not require written approvals and shall not be publicly notified. Non-compliance with the road boundary building setback standards in Building between 4.0 and 4.5m from the road boundary on the south side of a road orientated east-west (lots with a net area of 300m 2 and over). a. Impacts on neighbouring property b. Minimum building window and balcony setbacks from internal boundaries a. Street scene road boundary, building setback, front doors, fencing and planting Notification: Any application arising from this rule will not require written approvals and shall not be 11

42 Page 42 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A Activity RD14 publicly or limited notified. Note: Refer to Figure 9 for explanatory diagram. Building between 3.5m and 4m from the road boundary on all other roads (unless meeting other permitted activity standards in ). The Council s discretion shall be limited to the following matters: a. Street scene road boundary, building setback, front doors, fencing and planting RD23 RD14 Notification: Any application arising from this rule will not require written approvals and shall not be publicly or limited notified. Note: Refer to Figure 9 for explanatory diagram. New building work exceeding the daylight recession plane standard ( ) but contained within a plane commencing 4.5m at site boundaries and inclining inwards over the site as shown in Appendix Diagram A. a. Impacts on neighbouring property RD15 RD16 Non-compliance with water supply for fire fighting standard ( ). Notification: Any application arising from this rule will only require the written approval of the New Zealand Fire Service to not be limited notified and shall not be publicly notified. Home occupation, Pre- School, Healthcare, Veterinary Care and Education Activities and Facilities not complying with activity specific standards in Rules P5 P9. a. Water supply for fire fighting a. Scale of activity b. Non-residential hours of operation c. Traffic generation and access safety RD17 Integrated Family Health centres where the centre: 1. is located on a site with frontage and a primary entrance on a minor arterial or collector road where right turn offset, either informal or formal is available; 2. is located on a site adjoining a Neighbourhood, District or Key Activity Centre; 3. occupies a gross floor area of between m²; 4. outdoor advertising is limited to no a. Scale of activity b. Non-residential hours of operation c. Traffic generation and access safety

43 Page 43 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A Activity RD18 more than 2m²; 5. hours of operation when the centre is open to patients or clients is limited to Community corrections and community welfare facilities not complying with activity specific standards in Rules P15 and P16. Notification: Any application arising from this rule will not require written approvals and shall not be publicly or limited notified. The Council s discretion shall be limited to the following matters: a. Scale of activity b. Non-residential hours of operation c. Traffic generation and access safety RD19 Boarding Houses. a. Scale of activity RD20 RD21 RD22 RD23 Non-compliance with setback from railway lines standard ( f). Notification: Any application arising from this rule shall not be publicly notified or limited notified other than to will only require the written approval of the Kiwirail to not be limited notified and shall not be publicly notified. Spiritual facilities not complying with the hours of operation standard in Rule P17. Notification: Any application arising from this rule shall not be publicly notified and shall only be limited notified to directly abutting landowners and occupiers. Community welfare facilities not meeting the standards in Rule P16 Notification: Any application arising from this rule shall not be publicly notified and shall only be limited notified to directly abutting landowners and occupiers. New building work exceeding the daylight recession plane standard ( ) but contained within a plane commencing 4.5m at site boundaries and inclining inwards over the site as shown in Appendix Diagram A [relocated to RD14 above] b. Traffic generation and access safety a. Whether the reduced setback from the rail corridor will enable buildings to be maintained without requiring access above, over or on the rail corridor. a. Scale of activity b. Non-residential hours of operation a. Scale of activity b. Non-residential hours of operation c. Traffic generation and access safety b. Impacts on neighbouring property

44 Page 44 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A Activity RD24 RD25RD 23 Within the Upper Styx Outline Development Plan area, the erection of buildings or structures within the following geotechnical setbacks from waterway corridors, and stormwater basins and facilities: Within the Awatea ODP Tangata Whenua layer diagram, works to develop or redevelop any of the sites marked as controlled on the tangata whenua layer diagram where no cultural assessment has been supplied with resource consent application. The Council s discretion shall be limited to the following matters: a. 30m where the point of origin of the measurement is the crest of slope. a. Matters arising from consultation undertaken with appropriate tangata whenua representatives and any written approval obtained in the design phase of the works. b. Whether appropriate recognition has been given to the development requirements set out in the Awatea ODP. RD26RD 24 RD25 RD26 Non-compliance with rule P20 relating to the provision for rural activities Non-compliance with rule P21 relating to show homes a. Residential activities which are not provided for as a permitted or controlled activity; b. Education activities (P9); c. Pre-schools (P6); or d. Healthcare facilities (P7) located within the Air Noise Contour (50dBA Ldn) as shown on the Planning Maps. a. Whether appropriate recognition has been given to the development requirements set out in the relevant Outline Development Plan and adverse effect of the rural activity on achieving the development requirements in the future. a. Non-residential hours of operation a. The extent to which effects, as a result of the sensitivity of activities to current and future noise generation from aircraft, are proposed to be managed, including avoidance of any effect that may limit the operation, maintenance or upgrade of Christchurch International Airport. Any application made in relation to this rule shall not be publicly notified or limited notified other than to Christchurch International Airport Limited. 14

45 Page 45 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A Discretionary Activities The activities listed below are discretionary activities. Activity D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 Any activity not provided for as a permitted, controlled, restricted discretionary, noncomplying or prohibited activity. Activities that do not comply with any one or more of the activity specific standards in rule for: a. P1 Residential activity; b. P2 Bed and breakfast activity; c. P3 Care of non-resident children within a residential unit; d. P14 storage of heavy vehicles; dismantling, repair or storage of motor vehicles and/or boats and Places of assembly e. where the activity does not meet one or more of the relevant activity standards for permitted activities in Rule (P2, P3, P12, P13 and P14 respectively) Student hostels owned or operated by a secondary or tertiary education and research activity containing more than 10 bedrooms. Integrated Family Health Centres that do not meet one or more of the requirements in Rule RD1721. Activities that do not comply with the Consistency with Outline Development Plan standard ( ) Non-Complying Activities The activities listed below are non-complying activities. Activity NC1 a. Sensitive activities and buildings (excluding accessory buildings associated with an existing activity): i) Within 12 metres of the centre line of a 100kV or 220kV National Grid transmission line or within 12 metres of the foundation of an associated support structure; or ii) within 10 metres of the centre line of a 66kV National Grid transmission line or electricity distribution line or within 10 metres of a foundation of an associated support structure; or iii) within 5 metres of the centre line of a 33kV electricity distribution line or the 11kV Heathcote to Lyttelton electricity distribution line or within 5 metres of a foundation of an associated support structure. b. Fences within 5 metres of a National Grid transmission 66kV, 33kV and 11kV Heathcote to Lyttelton electricity distribution line support structure foundation. Any application made in relation to this rule shall not be publicly notified or limited notified other than to Transpower New Zealand. or Orion New Zealand Limited (as applicable). 15

46 Page 46 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A NC2 Notes: 1. The National Grid transmission lines and the 66kV, 33kV and the 11kv Heathcote to Lyttelton electricity distribution lines are shown on the planning maps. Any application made in relation to this rule shall not be publicly notified or limited notified other than to Transpower New Zealand or Orion New Zealand Limited (as applicable). 2. Vegetation to be planted around the National Grid or electricity distribution lines should be selected and/or managed to ensure that it will not result in that vegetation breaching the Electricity (Hazards from Trees) Regulations The New Zealand Electrical Code of Practice for Electrical Safe Distances (NZECP 34:2001) contains restrictions on the location of structures and activities in relation to National Grid transmission lines and electricity distribution lines. Buildings and activities in the vicinity of National Grid transmission lines and electricity distribution lines must comply with the NZECP 34:2001.). a. Sensitive activities and buildings (excluding accessory buildings associated with an existing activity): i) within 10 metres of the centre line of a 66kV electricity distribution line or within 10 metres of a foundation of an associated support structure; or ii) within 5 metres of the centre line of a 33kV electricity distribution line or within 5 metres of a foundation of an associated support structure. b. Fences within 5 metres of a 66kV, 33kV and the 11kV Heathcote to Lyttelton electricity distribution line support structure foundation. Any application made in relation to this rule shall not be publicly notified or limited notified other than to Orion New Zealand Limited or other electricity distribution network operator. NC3 Notes: 1. The electricity distribution lines are shown on the planning maps. 2. Vegetation to be planted around electricity distribution lines should be selected and/or managed to ensure that it will not result in that vegetation breaching the Electricity (Hazards from Trees) Regulations a. The New Zealand Electrical Code of Practice for Electrical Safe Distances (NZECP 34:2001) contains restrictions on the location of structures and activities in relation to electricity distribution lines. Buildings and activities in the vicinity of electricity distribution lines must comply with the NZECP 34:2001.). Within the Awatea ODP Area 2 residential activity and units whilst the Carrs Road Kart Club operates from its current location as illustrated on the Awatea ODP Prohibited Activities There are no prohibited activities 16

47 Page 47 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A Built form standards Where standards in this section conflict with any development requirements specified in an applicable Outline Development Plan then the development requirements in the Outline Development Plan shall apply Site density Each residential unit shall be contained within its own separate site Building height (a) The maximum building height is 8m. (b) (c) Within a comprehensive residential development thats meets the net site area threshold in Rule C2 where land use consent and subdivision consent is sought concurrently, the maximum building height is 11m. In the following Outline Development Plan areas, Tthe maximum building height is 11m within Density A areas as shown on the Outline Development Plan or on an approved subdivision consent plans for the following Outline Development Plan areass: (i) (ii) (iii) Prestons ODP Outline Development Plan - Appendix : 11m Wigram Outline Development PlanODP - Appendix : 13m Yaldhurst Outline Development PlanODP - Appendix : 11m (d) In the following Outline Development Plan areas, the maximum building height within Density B areas as shown on the Outline Development Plan or on an approved subdivision consent is: (i) (ii) Prestons Outline Development Plan - Appendix : 10m Wigram Outline Development Plan - Appendix : 9m Site coverage The maximum percentage of the net site area covered site coverage by buildings, excludingis: 1. Fences walls and retaining walls; 2. Eaves and roof overhangs up to 600 millimetres in width from the wall of a building; 3. Uncovered swimming pools up to 800 millimetres in height above ground level; and 17

48 Page 48 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A 4. Decks, terraces. balconies, porches, verandahs, bay or box eindows (supported or cantilevered) which: a. are no more than 800 millimetres above ground level and are uncovered or unroofed or b. where greater than 800 millimetres above ground level and are covered or roofed, are in total no more than 6m2 in area for any one site. shall be as follows: (a) 40% of net site area for lots with a net area of 300m 2 and over; (b) 45% of net site area for lots with a net area of under m 2 and under and for any comprehensive residential development that does not meet the net site area threshold in Rule C2. (c) (d) (e) 50% of net site area for comprehensive residential developments that meet the net site area threshold in Rule C2. 80% of net site area for Within Density A areas as shown on an approved subdivision consent plan the Prestons Outline Development Plan (Appendix ) or on the Wigram Outline Development Plan (Appendix ). in the following Outline Development Plan areas, the maximum site coverage shall be as follows: 60% of net site area for: (i) (ii) (iii) Density B areas as shown on the Prestons Outline Development Plan (Appendix ) or the Wigram Outline Development Plan (Appendix ); and Density A and B areas as shown on an approved subdivision consent plan for land within the Yaldhurst Outline Development Plan area (Appendix ). Prestons ODP Appendix and Wigram ODP Appendix % and no less than 25% of the site shall comprise permeable surfaces. Yaldhurst ODP Appendix % and no less than 25% of the site shall comprise permeable surfaces. (f) (e) 45% of net site area for medium density areas as shown on an approved subdivision consent plan for land within the Yaldhurst Outline Development Plan area (Appendix ). Within Density B areas as shown on an approved subdivision consent plan in the following Outline Development Plan areas, the maximum site coverage shall be as follows: (i) Prestons ODP Appendix and Wigram ODP Appendix % and no less than 25% of the site shall comprise permeable surfaces. 18

49 Page 49 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A For comprehensive residential developments and retirement villages, the percentage coverage by buildings shall be calculated over the net area of the site of the entire development, rather than over the net area of any part of the development Outdoor living space Accessible outdoor living space shall be provided on-site for each residential unit, and shall not be encumbered by parking or access arrangements. The outdoor living space(s) can be a mix of private and communal areas, at ground level or provided by way of above ground balconies, subject to the following dimensions: (a) For residential units (two bedrooms or more) a minimum total area of 30m 2 of which at least 16m 2 shall be private. (b) (c) For one bedroom or studio units on the ground floor a minimum total area of 16m 2 all of which shall be private. For one bedroom or studio units on the first floor or above, a minimum total area of 16m 2 of which at least 6m 2 shall be private. (d) The minimum dimension for a private ground floor space or communal space is 4m. (e) (f) The minimum dimension for a balcony is 1.5m. At least one private outdoor living space shall be accessible from a living area of the residential unit. (a) For residential units with two or more bedrooms, outdoor living space shall be provided on-site for each residential unit, and shall not be encumbered by parking or access arrangements. The outdoor living space(s) can be a mix of private and communal areas, at ground level or provided by way of above ground balconies, subject to the following dimensions: (a) Minimum total area for each residential unit 30m² (b) Minimum private area 16m² (c) Minimum dimension for private areas at ground level 4m (d) Minimum dimension for private balconies 1.5m (e) Minimum dimension of communal space 4m (f) Accessibility of communal space Accessible by all units (g) General accessibility for each residential unit At least one private outdoor living space shall be accessible from a living area of the residential unit 19

50 Page 50 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A (b) For one bedroom units or studios on the ground floor, outdoor living space shall be provided and shall not be encumbered by parking or access arrangements and shall meet the following dimensions: (a) Minimum total private area for each residential unit 16m² (b) Minimum dimension of individual private area(s) 4m (c) For one bedroom units or studios entirely at an upper floor level, outdoor living space shall be provided with the dimensions set out in the table below. The required spaces can be in a mix of private and communal areas. (a) Minimum total private area for each residential unit 16m² (b) Minimum private balcony dimensions 6m² area 1.5m dimension Note: This diagram is an illustrative example only, showing one way the rule may be applied. For two storey units, allocation of space should be spread over both levels, e.g. 24m² at ground level and 6m² as a balcony at first floor Daylight recession planes (a) Buildings shall not project beyond a building envelope constructed by recession planes (as shown in Appendix Diagram C), from points 2.3 metres above: i. internal boundaries; or ii. where an internal boundary of a site abuts an access lot or access strip the recession plane may be constructed from points 2.3 metres above the furthest boundary of the access lot or access strip or any combination of these areas; or iii. where buildings on adjoining sites have a common wall along an internal boundary the recession planes shall not apply along that part of the boundary covered by such a wall. iv. Except; buildings on sites in the Density A and B area shown on subdivision approval plans RMA in the Yaldhurst Outline Development Plan Appendix shall calculate recession planes as shown in Appendix Diagram D. (b) Where the building is located in an overlay that has a permitted height of more than 11 metres, the recession plane measurement shall commence from points 2.3 metres above internal boundaries and continue on the appropriate angle to points 11 metres above ground level, at which point the recession plane becomes vertical. Refer to Appendix for permitted intrusions 20

51 Page 51 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A (c) Where sites are located within a Floor Level and Fill Management Area, recession plane breaches created by the need to raise floor levels will not require the written approval of other parties and shall not be publicly notified or limited notified Minimum building setbacks from internal boundaries and railway lines (1) The minimum building setback from internal boundaries and railway lines shall be as set out in the table below. (a) All buildings not listed below 1.0m (b) (c) (d) Where residential buildings on adjoining sites have a ground floor window of a habitable space located within 1.8m of the common internal boundary Except for Density A and B sites shown on subdivision approval plans RMA in the Yaldhurst Outline Development Plan Appendix All other accessory buildings where the total length of walls or parts of the accessory building within 1.8m of each internal boundary does not exceed 10.1m in length Buildings that share a common wall along an internal boundary (e) All other buildings where the internal boundary of the site adjoins an access lot or access strip or combination of these areas (f) On sites adjacent or abutting railway lines buildings, balconies and decks (g) Additional setbacks are required from specified internal boundaries of the Prestons ODP 1.8m from that neighbouring window for a minimum length of 2m either side of a window refer to Figure 3. NIL NIL 1m 4m from the rail corridor boundary Refer to Prestons ODP Appendix narrative - section 2. Note: This diagram is an illustrative example only, showing one way the rule may be applied (refer to full rule for application of 1.8m separation). (2) The setbacks in (1) do not apply to the sites shown on subdivision approval plans RMA in the Yaldhurst Outline Development Plan Appendix , unless a residential unit constructed on these sites is demolished and rebuilt. 21

52 Page 52 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A Minimum setback and distance to living area windows and balconies and living spaces windows facing internal boundaries The minimum setback from an internal boundary for a living area window, including studio units, shall be 3m (and 4m for living area windows and balconies on floors above ground level) Landscaping (a) (b) The full length of the road frontage not used as vehicle or pedestrian access, shall be planted landscaped to a minimum depth of 2m. Landscaping is required in specified areas within the: (i) Prestons ODP area in accordance with Appendix narrative section 2 (ii) Highfield ODP area in accordance with Appendix narrative section Fencing in the road boundary setback (a) (b) The maximum height of any fence in the setback from the road frontage with a road shall be 1.2m. Within the Prestons Outline Development Plan area (Appendix ), clause (a) shall apply except that the maximum height of any fence shall not exceed 2m where the fence is at least 50% transparent: Note: Additional Ffencing is required requirements in the Prestons Outline Development Plan area are in specified areas within the Prestons ODP area in accordance with in Appendix narrative section Parking areas Parking areas shall be separated from adjoining roads by either planting, fences, or a combination thereof. The standards in (Landscaping) and (Fencing in the road boundary setback) apply. Where separation is by way of fencing the maximum height of fencing shall be 1.2m Garages (a) Garages shall not comprise more than 50% of the ground floor elevation viewed from any one road boundary on any one site and shall not be more than 6.5m wide. For garages with the vehicle door 22

53 Page 53 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A generally facing a shared access or road boundary the minimum garage setback shall be 5.5m from the shared access (not including access lots) or road boundary. (b) This rule shall not apply to sites shown on subdivision approval plans RMA in the Yaldhurst Outline Development Plan Appendix , unless a residential unit constructed on these sites is demolished and rebuilt Road boundary building setback (a) (b) (c) The minimum building setback from road boundaries shall be 4m except where (b) or (c) applies. The minimum building setback from road boundaries shall be 3m on any site within the Prestons Outline Development Plan area (Appendix ) or Yaldhurst Outline Development Plan (Appendix ): The minimum building setback from road boundaries shall be 2m on any site in Density A areas within the Wigram Outline Development Plan area (Appendix ). Within Density A areas as shown on an approved subdivision consent plan in the following Outline Development Plan areas, the minimum building setback from road boundaries shall be 3m: (i) Prestons ODP Appendix (ii) Wigram ODP Appedix (iii) Yaldhurst ODP Appendix Ground floor habitable space and overlooking of the street a. The ground floor of a Each residential unit, except for loft units, shall have a habitable space at the ground floor with a window area of at least 2m² facing the road boundary Service, storage, and waste management spaces a. Each residential unit shall be provided with i. an outdoor service space of 3m² and waste management area of 2.25m² with a minimum dimension of 1.5m; and ii. a single, indoor storage space of 4m² with a minimum dimension of 1m. 23

54 Page 54 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A b. Any waste management area, whether private or communal, shall not be located between the road boundary and any habitable space and shall be screened from adjoining sites, conservation or open space zones, roads, and adjoining outdoor living spaces to a height of 1.5m. c. If a communal waste management area is provided within the site, the minimum required outdoor service space is 3m² for each residential unit. d. If a communal waste management area is provided, it must be demonstrated to be: i. of a sufficient size to accommodate the number and dimensions of bins required to meet the predicted volume of waste generated by the residential units; ii. accessible and safe for use by all residents; and iii. accessible for the collection of bins by waste management contractors iv. designed in a way that avoids spillage or leakage into any water body. e. The standards in (a) to (d) do not apply to dwellings constructed as at [insert date of decision] Minimum unit size The minimum net floor area (including toilets and bathrooms, but excluding carparking, garaging or balconies) for any residential site shall be: Number of bedrooms Area a. Studio 35m² b. 1 bedroom 45m² c. 2 bedrooms 70m² d. 3 or more bedrooms 90m² Water supply for fire fighting Sufficient water supply and access to water supplies for firefighting shall be made available to all residential units via the Council s urban fully reticulated system and in accordance with the New Zealand Fire Fighting Water Supplies Code of Practice (SNZ PAS:4509:2008) Consistency with Outline Development Plan An activity shall not result in an outcome that is inconsistent with the development requirements in a relevant Outline Development Plan (which comprise both plans and narrative). 24

55 Page 55 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A 14.8A Matters for Control in the Residential New Neighbourhood Zone The following matters of control apply to controlled activities in the Residential New Neighbourhood Zone: (1) Context (1) Relationship to street and public open spaces (2) Built form and appearance (3) Onsite residential amenity and safety (4) Effects on amenity of neighbouring properties (5) Access, parking and servicing Where a built form standard in is not specified as a controlled activity standard, it may be considered as a guideline that may be applied flexibly when exercising control over the above matters (such as for comprehensive residential developments). In exercising control over the above matters, regard will be had to the matters of discretion in , and where relevant Matters of discretion For restricted discretionary activities in the Residential New Neighbourhood Zone, discretion is reserved over: (a) the matters specified in (restricted discretionary activity table) and; (b) the effect of non-compliance with any built form activity standard in The following assessment criteria will be used, as applicable, for the consideration of applications for restricted discretionary activities to the extent that Council has reserved its discretion, and will also be used for the consideration of applications for discretionary and non-complying activities. The following matters of discretion apply to activities in the Residential New Neighbourhood Zone: [full text of each is not reproduced here] Residential design principles Site density and site coverage Impacts on neighbouring property Minimum unit size and unit mix Scale of activity Traffic generation and access safety 25

56 Page 56 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A Stormwater ponding areas within three kilometres of Christchurch International Airport Water supply for fire fighting Acoustic insulation Retirement villages Development Plan Chapter 15 Appendix Use of site and buildings Prestons Road retirement village overlay Concept Plan Prestons Road retirement village overlay Vehicular access Prestons Road retirement village overlay Development plans Relocation of buildings etc Street scene road boundary building setback, fencing and planting Minimum building, window and balcony setbacks Service, storage and waste management spaces Outdoor living space Non-residential hours of operation Minor residential units Outline Development Plan [see new text below] Comprehensive residential development [see new text below] Outline Development Plan Where an activity does not meet standard (Consistency with Outline Development Plan), such as by proposing an alternative layout or proposal, the appropriateness of the proposal will be assessed taking into account relevant environmental effects and the outcomes sought by the Outline Development Plan Comprehensive residential development under Rule C3 and RD7 (a) (b) (c) Whether the comprehensive residential development land use and subdivision proposal is consistent with the relevant Outline Development Plan and the City Council s New Neighbourhood Design Guide. Whether the comprehensive residential development land use and subdivision proposal demonstrates that every site or residential unit will experience appropriate levels of sunlight, daylight, privacy, outlook and access to outdoor open space and overall a high level of amenity for the development. Whether sites proposed to exceed the maximum site coverage in standard are internal to the application site and will not compromise the achievement of ensure a high level of amenity within or beyond the development. 26

57 Page 57 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Whether buildings proposed to exceed the maximum permitted height allowance in standard will contribute positively to the overall coherence, design, layout and density of the development and surrounding sites. Whether the development engages with and contributes to adjacent streets, lanes and public open spaces, through the building orientation and setback, boundary and landscape treatment, pedestrian entrances, and provision of glazing from living areas. Whether the development, in terms of its built form and design, is of a domestic scale and generates visual interest through the separation of buildings, variety in building form and in the use of architectural detailing, glazing, materials, and colour; Whether the development integrates access, car parking and garaging to provide for pedestrian and cyclist safety and the quality of the pedestrian environment, and does not dominate the development, particularly when viewed from the street or other public spaces; Where the built form standards in are not specified as applying to comprehensive residential developments, whether good design outcomes are achieved using the standards as a flexible guideline. 27

58 Page 58 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A REVISED PROPOSAL 7 DECEMBER JANUARY RESIDENTIAL NEW NEIGHBOURHOOD (RNN) - OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLANS [Note: Changes to the narratives made since 9 November 2015 are not shown in marked up text.] The Outline Development Plans and Narratives have been updated as a result of the Council's Rebuttal Evidence dated 5 January Those amendments are shown in underlined purple text (for inserted text) and struck through purple text (for deleted text). APPENDIX NORTH WEST BELFAST OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN A CONTEXT The North West Belfast Outline Development Plan area is located on the northern edge of the city and is generally bounded by Johns Road, the Main North Road, the Groynes open space and the Waimakariri stopbank. The neighbourhood lies in close proximity to many essential facilities and amenities including the shopping centres at Belfast and Northwood as well as having easy access to major employment nodes at Belfast and the Airport. The established residential areas at Belfast and Northwood are located to the immediate east, north and south of the site. The Western Belfast bypass is located to the west of the site B GUIDANCE Guidance on the means to achieve the development requirements and form and design elements is provided within the Christchurch City Council s New Neighbourhood Design Guide. Further background and guidance is also provided in the Belfast Area Plan, Christchurch City Council, June C DEVELOPMENT FORM AND DESIGN The following design elements and features are relevant considerations in exercising control over the matters in A or the matters for discretion in A. They are not requirements which must be met to comply with Rule A(1) and Rule Consistency with the Outline Development Plan. 1. The main feature of this area will be the outlook to the adjacent open space to the north west of the site and the connections available to the Groynes, Clearwater and Waimairi walkway. Maximum advantage can be taken of these features through the provision of view shafts, pedestrian/cyclist links, alignment of roads and footpaths, location of reserves and orientation of lots. 2. This new neighbourhood offers significant opportunities in respect of integrating the new areas with on-site and nearby natural features and open space including the Groynes Reserve, Clearwater and the adjacent walkways. 3. A new commercial core centre located close to the Main North Road intersection with Johns Road, will provide a focus for the area and offer a range of local retail, business and community services.

59 Page 59 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A 4. Where existing properties are to remain or where the boundary of the RNN abuts properties in the Residential Suburban Zone, larger section sizes and/or planting buffers at the interface may be required. 5. The subdivision design is to achieve an open and attractive interface with the adjoining open spaces. 6. The subdivision design is to provide a good interface with adjacent roads and generally the interface treatment should encourage development to be consistent along the length of the road D DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS The development requirements which must be met to comply with Rule A(1) and Rule Consistency with the Outline Development Plan are described below and shown on the accompanying plan. INTEGRATION a) There are multiple landowners within the ODP area and a number of well-established existing properties. Subdivisions will demonstrate how new development is to be coordinated between the different land owners. DENSITY VARIATIONS Whilst a density of at least 15hh/ha is required across the ODP area, the land to the west of the Western Belfast ByPass will not achieve this yield due to access constraints. Rule A(2) density exemptions will may apply to this constrained area. OPEN SPACE, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES a) A walkway link between Belfast (intersection of Main North Road and Johns Road) to the Waimairi walkway. b) Two community (neighbourhood) parks generally located on the west end of the site and within the east section of the site close to the commercial core centre. c) A site boundary setback of 15 metres from the Devondale Driveway and the area within the setback will include a consistent design of permeable fences and the placement of key trees and shrubs within this 15m setback. ACCESS AND TRANSPORT a) A collector road running through the site from a point generally opposite Richill Street to Groynes Drive. This road is to be capable of accommodating a bus route. b) A single intersection is to be formed either directly on the Richill Street intersection with Main North Road or on Darroch Street, at a safe distance from the intersection of Darroch Street and Main North Road, in consultation with the relevant road controlling authority. c) Access to Johns Road between Lagan Street and Swift Street. d) A fully connected local road network across the neighbourhood that achieves a high level of accessibility for people including opportunities for walking, cycling and public transport. This will provide connections to Main North Road, Johns Road, and Groynes Drive and pedestrian and cyclist connections to the Groynes and the Waimairi walkway. e) Residential and other activities will have no direct vehicular access to Johns Road other than via intersections shown on the ODP while Johns Road between Groynes Drive and Main North Road is defined as a major arterial road in this Plan or until the state highway status of this part of

60 Page 60 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A Johns Road is revoked, whichever occurs the earlier. This requirement can be reconsidered with the written approval from the relevant road controlling authority. f) The connection of the collector road across the Devondale Driveway will be subject to agreement being reached with the existing owners of that land or alternative legal mechanisms such as acquisition under the Public Works Act. STORMWATER a) A stormwater management solution for the area which allows for the integration of stormwater with the surrounding Otukaikino catchment. b) Any on-site surface stormwater treatment/detention facilities provided are to be generally associated with open space locations. c) Where off-site stormwater treatment/detention facilities are provided these are to be developed in conjunction with enhancement of the habitat and ecological values of the Otukaikino River and tributaries that the stormwater system is connected to. d) Natural Springs (if any) to be identified and safeguarded at the time of subdivision. e) The design, layout and plant species proposed for any stormwater areas are to be undertaken and selected having consideration to the operations of the Christchurch International Airport. WATER AND WASTEWATER a) A new water supply main through the ODP area connecting to the Belfast water supply pump station and existing water supply mains on Groynes Drive and Johns Road. b) A new wastewater main through the ODP area connecting to the existing wastewater main on Main North Road. Wastewater Pump Station 62 will need to be upgraded to accommodate growth in the Belfast area.

61 Page 61 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A

62 Page 62 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A APPENDIX EAST BELFAST OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN A CONTEXT Belfast, originally a raupo swamp, developed as a township following the establishment of farming runs in the 1850's and the commencement of agricultural and industrial activities a couple of decades later. Belfast is a highly significant area for local Maori. It has historically been a traditional thoroughfare for travelling between Kaiapoi and Banks Peninsula. The East Belfast ODP area extends east and west from Blakes Road which divides the new neighbourhood in two. The Main North Railway Line runs to the west and the Northern Arterial designation to the east. The Belfast Business Park (previously occupied by the Canterbury Freezing Works) is generally to the north. A defining feature of the site is the Kaputone Stream, which traverses the site. It is recognised as both an important natural feature of the area and as having cultural significance to local Iwi. East Belfast also contains Spring Grove, a Heritage Item that is recognised as being an important heritage resource for the Belfast Community. The construction of the Northern Arterial will require the realignment of the Kaputone Stream B GUIDANCE Guidance on the means to achieve the development requirements and form and design elements is provided within the Christchurch City Council s New Neighbourhood Design Guide. Further background and guidance is also provided in the Belfast Area Plan, Christchurch City Council, June C DEVELOPMENT FORM AND DESIGN The following design elements and features are relevant considerations in exercising control over the matters in A or the matters for discretion in A. They are not requirements which must be met to comply with Rule A(1) and Rule Consistency with the Outline Development Plan. 1. The Kaputone Stream will become the major feature of this neighbourhood together with Spring Grove heritage house. New development should have an open and attractive interface with the Kaputone Stream corridor. 2. A number of mature trees also provide a link to the past. Maximum advantage should be taken of these features through provision of view shafts, alignment of roads, pedestrian/cyclist links and orientation of lots. 3. A high quality public open space system comprising a network of green linkages including esplanade reserve and community (neighbourhood) parks within a curvilinear corridor system including stormwater facilities and public amenity areas is anticipated. 4. The interface with the railway line and motorway is to be designed to ensure a good outlook and acceptable noise levels for residents and take advantage of any recreational opportunities. 5. Blakes Road will become a primary link through the neighbourhood. New development should be designed to have a good interface with this road. 6. Where practicable similar interface treatments will be achieved along the length of the railway line, the stream corridor, the motorway and Blakes Road. 7. A site is zoned Commercial Local on the west side of Blakes Road between the RNN Zone and Belfast Business Park. This can provide local shopping, community and services uses and become a focal point for the community.

63 Page 63 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A 8. There are two protected trees which are to be retained and could become enhanced as a key feature of the development D DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS The development requirements which must be met to comply with Rule A(1) and Rule Consistency with the Outline Development Plan are described below and shown on the accompanying plan. 1. INTEGRATION a) Road, pedestrian, cycleway and reserve linkages shall be achieved with the South East Belfast ODP area. b) Convenient pedestrian and cyclist access to it should be provided from all residential areas. c) An odour buffer area is to be provided adjacent to Belfast Road until such time as specific reverse sensitivity issues cease. Activities within the odour buffer area are limited to nonresidential activities including educational, spiritual, day care or health facility uses until such time as the buffer area is no longer required, after which residential activities can locate in this area. 2. DENSITY VARIATIONS a) In the area identified as Spring Grove heritage house as shown on the Outline Development Plan, the minimum allotment size will be 3,500m 2. Rule A(2) density exemptions will may apply to this constrained area. 3. OPEN SPACE, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES a) A continuous open space corridor generally based on the alignment of the Kaputone Stream and integrated with stormwater devices, cycle and pedestrian facilities, including esplanade reserve with an average width of 20m and a minimum width of 5m. b) Where part of the open space areas, including the Kaputone Open Space Corridor are not required by the Council for public open space, the land shall then be treated as a continuation of the immediately adjacent residential area and the Residential New Neighbourhood rules shall apply unless otherwise stated in consent notice under section 221 of the Resource Management Act (or similar mechanism) for that land. c) A community (neighbourhood) park in a central location. 4. ACCESS AND TRANSPORT a) A fully interconnected local road network across the site that achieves a high level of accessibility for people including opportunities for walking, cycling and public transport and the that provides connections with Thompsons Road and Blakes Road and safe and convenient pedestrian and cycle access to the South East Belfast ODP area to facilitate access to nearby facilities such as Sheldon Park, the Belfast Supa Centa and Commercial Core Zone and Belfast School. b) Blakes Road is to be upgraded to collector standard to become the primary movement route ( the spine road ) through the site linking Belfast Road with Thompsons Road to the south and continuing through South East Belfast ODP area to Radcliffe Road. c) Connections to the cycle routes alongside the railway line and motorway from within the neighbourhood.

64 Page 64 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A 5. STORMWATER a) A sustainable stormwater management system for the neighbourhood integrated alongside open space reserves and compatible with the natural, cultural, ecological and amenity values of the site. b) All natural watercourses in the neighbourhood are to be integral components of the open space network. 6. WATER AND WASTEWATER a) Water supply mains are in place. A new well will be required at the Thompsons water supply pump station to service growth in the Belfast area. b) Wastewater mains are in place. Wastewater Pump Station 62 will need to be upgraded to accommodate growth in the Belfast area. 7. STAGING a) No more than 200 residential allotments shall be created until such time as Blakes Road (from Belfast Road to Radcliffe Road) has been upgraded to a minimum 9m wide sealed carriageway or until such time as financial provision has been made for these works within the Council's Capital Works Programme and Development Contributions Policy, whichever is the earlier. b) Where any part of the Northern Arterial Designation is uplifted the Residential New Neighbourhood Zone rules shall apply unless otherwise stated in a consented notice under Section 221 of the Resource Management Act (or similar mechanism) for that land.

65 Page 65 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A

66 Page 66 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A APPENDIX SOUTH EAST BELFAST OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN A CONTEXT Belfast, originally a raupo swamp, developed as a township following the establishment of farming runs in the 1850's and the commencement of agricultural and industrial activities a couple of decades later. The settlement is physically distinct due to its situation at the northern edge of the city and its separation from the rest of Christchurch by the Styx River corridor to the south and extensive rural/urban boundary. Belfast is a highly significant area for local Maori. It has historically been a traditional thoroughfare for travelling between Kaiapoi and Banks Peninsula. The Styx River, Kaputone Stream, railway line and proposed Northern Arterial Motorway will contain this new neighbourhood and provide the opportunity to clearly identify it as a distinct place distinguished by its connection with the Styx River B GUIDANCE Guidance on the means to achieve the development requirements and form and design elements is provided within the Christchurch City Council s New Neighbourhood Design Guide. Further background and guidance is also provided in the Belfast Area Plan, Christchurch City Council, June C DEVELOPMENT FORM AND DESIGN The following design elements and features are relevant considerations in exercising control over the matters in A or the matters for discretion in A. They are not requirements which must be met to comply with Rule A(1) and Rule Consistency with the Outline Development Plan. 1. The edge of residential development will be visible from Main North Road and across the river from the Styx River Conservation Reserve and Redwood Springs neighbourhood. New development is to be designed to take maximum advantage of the Styx River through providing visual and physical access to the river corridor for residents and the wider community. This can be achieved through the provision of view shafts, pedestrian/cyclist links, alignment of roads and footpaths, location of reserves and orientation of lots. 2. Belfast Supa-Centre and Belfast Commercial Core Zone are in close proximity. The neighbourhood is to be designed to take advantage of this, with higher densities closer to the commercial area and good connections to it. 3. Radcliffe Road will provide access between the motorway and Main North Road. New development will need to be designed to have a good interface with this road. The treatment is to be consistent along its length D DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS The development requirements which must be met to comply with Rule A(1) and Rule Consistency with the Outline Development Plan are described below and shown on the accompanying plan. 1. INTEGRATION a) Subdivision layouts are to be designed to align roads and footpaths along the edge of the river corridor in the same manner as Willowview Drive to the south.

67 Page 67 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A b) The new neighbourhood is to link with the East Belfast ODP area, adopting similar treatments for the interface with the railway line and motorway, to ensure a good outlook and acceptable noise levels for residents, and take advantage of any recreational opportunities. c) The Kaputone Stream is to be a major focus of new neighbourhood. A short section of the skaputone Stream runs along the north eastern boundary of the ODP area. It is to be enhanced and utilised as a design feature and recreational asset in the same manner as the rest of the corridor. 2. DENSITY VARIATION a) Area 1.a - Residential densities of more than 15 hh's/ha are required due to its proximity to the commercial area and few development constraints. b) Area 1. B - This area interfaces with the Kaputone Stream and motorway corridor and is an irregular shape. This may limit its development capacity. Rule A(2) density exemptions will may apply to this constrained area. c) Area 2 - The irregular southern boundary and the need for setbacks will reduce the development capacity of this block a little, but it is otherwise unencumbered and densities of at least 15 hh's/ha is to be achieved. d) Area 3 - This pocket of land has severe development constraints and may be more appropriately used for stormwater management, conservation and recreational use. Should this not eventuate lower density residential development may be achievable. Rule A(2) density exemptions will may apply to this constrained area. 3. OPEN SPACE, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES a) A reserve community (neighbourhood) close to the north side of Radcliffe Road in a central location. b) A reserve community (neighbourhood) alongside the Styx River in a central location. c) Recreational routes along the Styx and Kaputone River esplanades. d) Two heritage items are to be retained, being the 17 Blakes Road stable block and 120 Radcliffe Road bay villa. e) The location of the historic Maori footpath that once ran through Belfast is to be identified and the route restored or marked. 4. ACCESS AND TRANSPORT a) Radcliffe Road to be upgraded to collector road status to provide for public transport, pedestrian and cycleways. b) Blakes Road to be upgraded to urban standard, to correlate with the design for the section through East Belfast RNN. c) A fully interconnected local road network across the site that achieves a high level of accessibility for people, including opportunities for walking, cycling and public transport and that provides connections with Radcliffe Road, Blakes Road and across Thompsons Road to connect with the East Belfast ODP area. d) At least one access onto Radcliffe Road from Area 1.a. in addition to Blakes Road. e) More than one access onto Radcliffe Road from Area 2 to enable a loop road through the area. f) Pedestrian and cyclist links to adjacent areas (including over the railway line and under the motorway) and to the Styx River and Kaputone Stream corridors.

68 Page 68 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A g) Formation of a section of the Northern Line Cycleway, an off-road rail pathway from Belfast to South Hagley Park. 5. STORMWATER a) Two stormwater facilities adjacent to the Styx River in Area 2. b) Stormwater management area adjacent to Main North Road. 6. WATER AND WASTEWATER a) A new water supply main is to be constructed from the Thompsons Water Supply Pump Station (on Thompsons Road next to the railway line) or from the water supply main on Thompsons Road, which runs south and east through the South East Belfast ODP area to connect to the Highfield ODP area. b) A new pressure main along Thompsons Road to the sewer on Main North Road will be required to service the new neighbourhood. Wastewater Pump Station 62 will need to be upgraded to accommodate growth in the Belfast area. 7. STAGING There are no staging requirements other than those relating to the provision of infrastructure.

69 Page 69 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A

70 Page 70 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A APPENDIX PRESTONS (NORTH AND SOUTH) OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN A CONTEXT The Prestons Outline Development Plan area covers approximately 200ha of land on the north east edge of the city and involves land both north and south of Prestons Road. It is bounded by Mairehau Road to the south and Lower Styx Road to the north. To the east, the site adjoins the established suburb of Burwood and residential developments such as The Limes, Tumara Park and Waitikiri. There are also two 18-hole golf courses to the north-east that link the zone to Bottle Lake Forest Park. To the west, there is mostly an area of what is considered to be more productive and versatile soils, which provides a setback and buffer to residential properties from Marshland Road B GUIDANCE Guidance on the means to achieve the development requirements and form and design elements is provided within the Christchurch City Council s New Neighbourhood Design Guide C DEVELOPMENT FORM AND DESIGN The following design elements and features are relevant considerations in exercising control over the matters in A or the matters for discretion in A. They are not requirements which must be met to comply with Rule A(1) and Rule Consistency with the Outline Development Plan. 1. New development is to integrate with established urban areas and with on-site and nearby natural features and open space. 2. Commercial activities will be centrally located and will accommodate local retail, business, civic and community/recreational activities. 3. The key feature of the new neighbourhood will be the central stormwater and open space corridor D DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS The development requirements which must be met to comply with Rule A(1) and Rule Consistency with the Outline Development Plan are described below and shown on the accompanying plan. 1. INTEGRATION AND INTERFACES a) Subdivision designs will demonstrate connectivity between different land ownership areas through road, open space and pedestrian and cycleway linkages. b) From and along the rural boundary a 15m building setback is required and prior to or concurrently with the construction of the first building on any allotment, a solidly clad boundary fence shall be erected, having a minimum height of 1.8 metres and a maximum height of 2m. c) A 10m deep landscape strip shall be planted along the frontage with Lower Styx Road with native shrubs and small trees selected from the Prestons Planting List. One large native tree selected from Prestons Planting List shall be provided per 40m² of the 10m required landscape strip. d) Buildings shall be setback 15m from Lower Styx Road. e) Fencing along the boundary with Lower Styx Road, and fencing along first 10m of internal boundaries back from Lower Styx Road, shall not exceed a maximum height of 1.2m and shall be at least 50% visually transparent.

71 Page 71 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A f) A 3m landscape strip shall be planted along with Mairehau Road with native shrubs and small trees selected from the Prestons Planting List. One tree selected from the Prestons Planting List shall be provided per 20m 2 of the 3m required landscaping strip. A Minimum 50% of required trees shall be native. g) Buildings shall be setback 10m from Mairehau Road. h) Fencing on the boundary with Mairehau Road, and fencing along first 3m of internal boundaries, back from Mairehau Road shall not exceed a maximum height of 1.2m and shall be at least 50% visually transparent. i) A 10m landscape strip shall be provided adjacent to the boundary with the Waitikiri and Windsor Golf Courses and shall be maintained as turf. One large tree selected from the Prestons Planting List shall be provided per site adjoining golf courses. One additional large tree selected from the Prestons Planting List shall be planted per 100m² of the 10m required landscape strip. j) A minimum 10m building setback from the boundary with the Waitikiri and Windsor Golf Courses. k) Fencing on the boundary with Waitikiri and Windsor Golf Courses, and fencing along first 10m of internal boundaries back from Waitikiri and Windsor Golf Courses, shall not exceed a maximum height of 1.2m and shall be at least 50% visually transparent. 2. DENSITY VARIATIONS a) A density of between 13 and 15 households per hectare (hh's/ha) is to be achieved across the ODP area, with variety in density and housing types. The density yields types will be defined on the Outline Development Plan maps below or on an approved subdivision consent plan. 3. OPEN SPACE, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES a) A continuous reserve corridor located from the Domain on Prestons Road through to Mairehau Road. b) Additional community (neighbourhood) parks are required to support the higher density areas. 4. ACCESS AND TRANSPORT a) A fully interconnected local road network across the site that achieves a high level of accessibility for people, including opportunities for walking, cycling and public transport. b) No direct vehicle access from any residential allotment shall be granted to Mairehau Road from the following unless the 80km speed limit on Mairehau Road is reduced to 60km or less, or a subdivision consent plan establishing residential access is approved; (i) (ii) any secondary road until such time as the portion of the main primary road linking Prestons Road to Mairehau Road is open to traffic; any residential allotment. 5. STORMWATER a) All watercourses in the neighbourhood are to be integral components of the open space network.

72 Page 72 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A 76. WATER AND WASTEWATER a) The area is serviced by a vacuum sewer system. The Vacuum Sewer Pump Station VS5003 has capacity for the equivalent of 2,364 residential lots. 87. STAGING a) No more than 1700 residential units and 7200m 2 of non-residential activities within the Prestons ODP area shall occur until such time as construction of the Northern Arterial and the 4-laning of QEII Drive between Main North Road and Innes Road together with either the Northern Arterial extension or the Hills Road extension has commenced. 98. PRESTONS PLANTING LIST Large Native Trees Dacrydium cupressinum Podocarpus totara Prumnopitys taxifolia Large Exotic Trees Acer campestre Alnus Glutinosa Liquidambar styraciflua Platanus orientali Quercus coccinea Quercus palustris Tilia cordata Small Native Trees Dodonea viscosa Kunzea ericoides Leptospermum scoparium Plagianthus regius manatu Sophora microphylla Native Shrubs and Small Trees >1.2m Coprosma propinqua Coprosma robusta Coprosma aff. Cordyline australis ti kouka Griselinia littoralis Hebe salicifolia Hoheria angustifolia Lophomyrtus obcordata Melicope simplex Melicytus ramiflorus Myrsine divaricata Olearia paniculata Pennantia corymbosa Phomium tenax rimu totara matai field maple black alder liquidambar 'autumn glory' plane tree scarlet oak pin oak small-leaved lime akeake kanuka manuka lowland ribbonwood south island kowhai mikimiki karama mikimiki (shrub) kouka/cabbage tree kapuka/broadleaf koromiko (shrub) hohere/narrow-leaved lacebark rohutu/nz murtle poataniwha (shrub) mahoe weeping mahout golden akeake/akiraho kaikomako harakeke

73 Page 73 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A Pittosporum tenuifolium Pseudopanax crassifolius Native Shrubs <1.2m Anemanthele lessoniana Astelia frangrans Carex buchananii Carex testacea speckled sedge Cyperus ustulatus Dainella nigra Festuca novae-zelandiae Haloragis erecta Hypericumm gramineum Libertia ixioides Poa cita Poa colensoi Polystichum richardii Uncinia uncinata kohuhu/black matipo/tawhiro horoeka/lancewood hunangamoho/wind grass kakaha/bush lily purei speckled sedge toetoe upotangata inkberry fescue tussock toatoa new zealand st johnswort mikoikoi/nz iris silver tussock blue tussock pikopiko/black shield fern hook-sedge

74 Page 74 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A

75 Page 75 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A

76 Page 76 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A APPENDIX HIGHFIELD PARK OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN A CONTEXT The Highfield Park RNN is located in the Marshlands Area of Christchurch, it extends north and south from Prestons Road. The first settlers in the 1860's undertook major drainage work to turn the swampland into productive farmland. Hills Road, which forms most of the eastern boundary of the neighbourhood was formed along the hard soil which provided the only safe route through the area, hence its curvilinear alignment and country lane character. The Styx River forms the northern boundary and Horners Drain traverses the southern half of the site, mostly in a deep open box drain with steep sides. Views are afforded across rural land to the north and east and towards the Port Hills to the south. There are a few large existing dwellings located towards the centre of the neighbourhood. A number of established trees of both native and exotic species are located along Hills and Hawkins Roads, Prestons Road and within the environs of residential dwellings. Prestons Road provides access to the established neighbourhood of Redwood to the west and the Prestons RNN and commercial centre to the east. The Northern Arterial Motorway corridor will form the western boundary B GUIDANCE Guidance on the means to achieve the development requirements and form and design elements is provided within the Christchurch City Council s New Neighbourhood Design Guide C DEVELOPMENT FORM AND DESIGN The following design elements and features are relevant considerations in exercising control over the matters in A or the matters for discretion in A. They are not requirements which must be met to comply with Rule A(1) and Rule Consistency with the Outline Development Plan. 1. The Styx River, the proposed Northern Arterial Motorway, QEII Drive and rural land to the east will contain this new neighbourhood and provide the opportunity to clearly identify it as a distinct place. The linear nature of the site lends itself to being structured around a central corridor comprising the collector road and linear reserves. 2. North-south alignment of roads will enable views to the south as well as good solar access to properties. 3. New development should be designed to have an open and attractive interface with the river corridor and provide visual and physical access to the river corridor for residents and the wider community. 4. Advantage can also be taken of Hills Road and existing trees and hedgerows to provide a connection with the past. 5. Development immediately adjacent to Hills Road and Hawkins Road should provide a transition between the RNN and rural zoned land to the east and respect the rural character and function of the road. 6. Where existing properties are to remain larger section sizes and planting buffers adjacent to them may be required. 7. New development adjacent to the motorway and QEII Drive is to be designed such that a good outlook to and from the road and acceptable noise levels for residents is achieved. This may require longer

77 Page 77 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A lots, screen planting and mounding. If acoustic fencing is used its blank appearance should be softened by planting. 8. There is a protected tree which is to be retained and its setting could be enhanced to provide a focal point for the neighbourhood. 8. There is potential for at least one small scale community and commercial node, in a high profile, readily accessible location D DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS The development requirements which must be met to comply with Rule A(1) and Rule Consistency with the Outline Development Plan are described below and shown on the accompanying plan. 1. INTEGRATION a) There are multiple land owners within this ODP area and a number of existing properties. Subdivision designs will demonstrate good connectivity between different land ownership areas through road, open space and pedestrian and cycleway linkages. b) Development is to face onto Prestons Road although there will be no vehicle access to it, other than the collector road. c) Subdivision layouts will be designed to align roads and footpaths along the edge of the river corridor. 2. DENSITY VARIATIONS a) Area 1 - Residential densities of at least 15 hh's/ha are anticipated, with densities generally increasing towards the collector road and towards Prestons Road and around any commercial node. Lots immediately adjacent to Hills Road and Hawkins Road are to be a minimum net site area of 800m². b) Area 2 - There is a risk of flooding in this area due to a shallow aquifer and a drain that flows into it. Rule A(2) density exemptions will may apply to this constrained area. c) Area 3 - There are special setback provisions relating to these areas alongside the motorway and Hills and Hawkins Road, which may restrict development capacity. Rule A(2) density exemptions will may apply to this constrained area. 3. OPEN SPACE, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES a) A continuous community (neighbourhood) park reserve corridor incorporating Horners Drain from the Styx River corridor to QEII Drive. This corridor is to include a local recreation reserve in the north of the neighbourhood and a local reserve adjacent to the collector road in the south of the neighbourhood. b) Three further community (neighbourhood) parks, one in the north eastern part of the neighbourhood and two in the south eastern part of the neighbourhood. c) Continuation of the Styx "Source to Sea" reserve network along the river corridor. A recreational route along the Styx River esplanade from Hawkins Road to connect with the Styx River Conservation Reserve adjacent to Redwood Springs. This to include a pedestrian/cyclist link under the Northern Arterial Motorway. d) Horners Drain is to be enhanced and naturalised to provide a point of difference within the neighbourhood.

78 Page 78 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A 4. ACCESS AND TRANSPORT Those roads identified in Diagram A are to be developed in accordance with the illustrated cross section. a) Improvements to the intersection of Main North Road/Prestons Road. b) Improvements to Prestons Road through the neighbourhood. c) A collector road running northwards and southwards from Prestons Road. This to include a signalised intersection at Prestons Road. d) Traffic signals (or an alternative intersection treatment agreed with the Council) at the intersection of Grimseys Road and Prestons Road. e) Upgrading of Hawkins Road between Prestons Road and Selkirk Road to include a minimum carriageway width of 7m and a shared path on the Highfield ODP side to accommodate walking and cycling. f) Upgrading of Hills Road between Prestons Road and QEII Drive to include a minimum carriageway width of 7m and a shared path on the Highfield ODP side to accommodate walking and cycling. g) A fully interconnected local road network across the site that achieves a high level of accessibility for people, including opportunities for walking, cycling and public transport. This is to provide connections with Prestons Road, Hills Road and Hawkins Road and access for pedestrians and cyclists to the Styx River corridor, Owen Mitchell Park (if possible under the motorway) and QEII Drive. 5. STORMWATER a) A stormwater management solution for the neighbourhood which allows for the integration of stormwater from upstream catchments such as Kruses Drain, Horners Stream and the Cranford Basin, but does not preclude the ability of stormwater from the Northern Arterial Motorway being effectively managed and discharged. b) A stormwater management facility incorporating a wetland area adjacent to QEII Drive c) Enhancement of the habitat and ecological values of the Styx River and its margins in association with stormwater management and provision of reserves and to give effect to the Styx River Stormwater Management Plan. d) Reconfiguration and enhancement of Horners Stream to improve its capacity and functioning for stormwater management while ensuring habitat and ecological values are enhanced and developed e) Natural springs (if any) to be identified and safeguarded at the time of subdivision. 6. WATER AND WASTEWATER a) New water supply trunk mains will be required through the Highfield ODP area, with connections to the East Belfast ODP area, Prestons Road and QEII Drive. A new Highfield well and water supply pump station will be required when development is approximately 80% complete. b) A wastewater master plan needs to be developed to determine the type of wastewater service that will be constructed in the Highfield ODP area. New wastewater main(s) will be required from the Highfield ODP area to the Northcote Collector on Main North Road, along Prestons Road and/or QEII Drive.

79 Page 79 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A 7. STAGING a) Prior to the approval of any subdivision north of the Transport Monitoring Line (TML) shown on the ODP construction of the following must commence: (i) Upgrading Prestons Road between the existing urban/rural boundary and the Hawkins/Hills Road intersection (ii) Formation of the collector road/prestons Road intersection (including the provision of traffic signal infrastructure) and (iii) Upgrading the Main North Road intersection to better accommodate turning movements out of Prestons Road and right turn movements from Main North Road. b) Prior to the approval of any subdivision that creates the 400th residential allotment north of the TML construction on the installation of traffic signals at the Marshland Road/Prestons Road intersection must commence. c) Prior to the approval of any subdivision that creates the 750th residential allotment north of the TML construction on the installation of traffic signals at the Grimseys Road/Prestons Road intersection (or an alternative intersection treatment agreed with the Council) must commence. d) Hawkins Road is to be upgraded in conjunction with the establishment of any new road connections to Selkirk Place or Hawkins Road. e) Hills Road is to be upgraded in conjunction with the establishment of any new road connections to Hills Road. Upgrading to occur between QE II Drive and the new road connection until the establishment of the fifth connection, at which time the upgrading is to be completed between QEII Drive and Prestons Road. f) Once 1400 residential allotments have been granted consent in this RNN all subsequent subdivision applications for residential allotments must demonstrate that Level of Service E or better shall be achieved for the turn movements of the intersections identified in the table below. If construction of the Northern Arterial Motorway has commenced then these requirements shall not apply. Intersection Main North/Prestons Grimseys/Prestons Collector road/prestons Hawkins/Hills/Prestons Lower Styx/Hawkins/Marshland Hills/QEII QEII/Innes Approach and Movement Main North Road: right turn Prestons Road: left turn and right turn All movements All movements (unless the traffic signals are already operational) All movements Hawkins Road: all permitted movements Marshlands road: right turn into Hawkins Road Hills Road: left turn QEII Drive: westbound through movement g) Concurrently or prior to the approval of any subdivision that includes part of Horners Stream, an engineering design concept for the realignment of Horners Stream (from its connection with Kruses Drain through to the Styx River) and an ecological assessment of the design at a conceptual level shall be provided to the Council for consideration for certification. Detailed

80 Page 80 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A engineering, landscape and ecological design for each section of the Stream is required at the time of subdivision consent. 8. ADDITIONAL SETBACK REQUIREMENTS a) Minimum building setback from Hills and Hawkins Road shall be 10m. The full length of the frontage of Hills Road and Hawkins Road shall be planted to a depth of 5m from the road. b) Where a rear boundary or side boundary of any land within a subdivision abuts a property not owned by the applicant (other than land owned by the Council or NZTA) prior to any earthworks or land improvement being undertaken associated with the subdivision, the entire boundary length shall be planted to a depth of 5m and shall only include plants as listed below. Ongoing maintenance of the planted strip shall be required through Consent Notices imposed by condition of subdivision consent to be registered on the Certificate of Title of all new allotments to be created by the subdivision which abut such boundaries. Diagram A: Road Cross sections for Styx River/Selkirk Place, Hawkins Road, Hills Road and Prestons Road.

81 Page 81 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A A: Native Plants (i) Trees (ii) Small tree and shrubs Alectryon excelsus - ki Aristotelia serratus - wineberry Cordyline australis - cabbage tree Carpodetus serratus - marbleleaf Dacrycarpus dacrydioides - kaihikatea Coprosma areolata Elaeocarpus dentatus - hinau Coprosma linarifolia - yellow-wood Eleaocarpus hookerianus - pokaka Coprosma lucida - shining karamu Pi osporum eugenioides - lemonwood Coprosma robusta - karamu Plagianthus regus - lowland ribbonwood Coprosma rotundifolia - round leaved coprosma Podocarpus totora - totora Fuchsia excor cate - fuchsia Prumnopitys ferruginea - miro Griselinia li oralis - broadleaf Prumnopitys taxifolia - matai Hedycarpa arborea - pigeonwood Pseudopanax crassifolius - lancewood Hoheria angus folia - lacebark Sophora microphylla - kowhai Lophomyrtus abcordata - NZ myrtle Melicytus ramiflorus - mahoe Melicytus micranthus - shrubby mahoe Myrsine australis - red mapau Neomyrtus pedunculata Pennan a corymbosa - kaikomako Pi osporum tenuifolium - kohuhu Pseudopanax arboreus - fivefinger Pseudowintera colorata - pepper tree Strebius heterophyllus - turepo B: Exotic trees Acer campestre - field maple Platanus orientalis - plane Acer negundo Quercus coccinea - scarlet oak Alnus glu nosa - black alder Quercus palustrus - pin oak Alnus rubra - red alder Quercus robur fas gata Carpinus betulinus fas gata - upright hornbeam Tilia cordata - lime Liquidambar styraciflua - liquidamber Prunus species - flowering cherries

82 Page 82 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A

83 Page 83 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A

84 Page 84 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A

85 Page 85 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A APPENDIX UPPER STYX OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN A CONTEXT This area to the north west of Christchurch lies to the south of the Styx River, one of the primary natural features of Christchurch. Prior to European settlement, the extensive wetlands and easy access to the sea made the Styx an important area for mahinga kai (food gathering) and for the cultivation and harvesting of flax. There are numerous large trees and boundary and garden planting. The Styx River forms part of the northern boundary of the neighbourhood and Highsted Stream and a number of drains run through it. Tullet Park is near the centre of the neighbourhood, Harewood Park, Willowbank Wildlife Reserve and the extensive Styx Mill Conservation Reserve are located to the west and north. The existing residential areas of Casebrook, Redwood and Regents Park lie to the south and east. A business zone is located immediately to the east of the RNN with a frontage to Cavendish Road. The western boundary of the ODP area is formed by the airport noise contour B GUIDANCE Guidance on the means to achieve the development requirements and form and design elements is provided within the Christchurch City Council s New Neighbourhood Design Guide C DEVELOPMENT FORM AND DESIGN The following design elements and features are relevant considerations in exercising control over the matters in A or the matters for discretion in A. They are not requirements which must be met to comply with Rule A(1) and Rule Consistency with the Outline Development Plan. 1. The main features of this area will be the waterways (Styx River and Highsted Stream), Tullet Park and its proximity to Styx Mill Conservation Reserve. Advantage can also be taken of existing trees and hedgerows to provide a sense of maturity and a connection with the past. 2. Where existing properties are to remain larger section sizes and planting buffers adjacent to them may be required. 3. New development should have an open and attractive interface with the Styx River corridor. 4. New development adjacent to the north western boundary should establish an appropriate interface with adjoining rural land. 5. Housing densities should generally increase towards Tullet Park. 6. Higher density development may be appropriate opposite Cavendish Business Park and around the stormwater facilities. 7. There is a protected tree which is to be retained and its setting could be enhanced to provide a focal point for the local area neighbourhood. 8. There is potential for a local commercial centre on Claridges Road, opposite Tullet Park, to provide a focus for the development and support higher density areas D DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS The development requirements which must be met to comply with Rule A(1) and Rule Consistency with the Outline Development Plan are described below and shown on the accompanying plan.

86 Page 86 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A 1. INTEGRATION a) There are multiple land owners within this ODP area and a number of existing properties. Subdivision designs will demonstrate good connectivity between different land ownership areas through road, open space and pedestrian and cycleway linkages. b) Development is to face onto Styx Mill Road, Cavendish Road, Claridges Road, Gardiners Road and Highsted Road. c) This edge of the neighbourhood will be visible across the river from the Styx Mill Conservation Reserve. As the reserve is intended to provide a wilderness experience, the subdivision design shall demonstrate how views of urban development from within the reserve can be minimised and where possible avoided. 2. OPEN SPACE, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES a) A recreational route between the Styx River corridor and Tullet Park, incorporating an enhanced and realigned Highsted Stream and new stormwater facilities. b) Three further community (neighbourhood) parks, two in the north and one in the south eastern part of the neighbourhood. c) An extension to Tullet Park. d) Continuation of the Styx "Source to Sea" reserve network along the river corridor. 3. ACCESS AND TRANSPORT a) A collector road running across the western side of the neighbourhood connecting Styx Mill Road and Claridges Road. b) A collector road running from Cavendish Road through the neighbourhood to Gardiners Road, forming crossroads with Highsted Road, a new north-south collector road (as in 35.a above) and Claridges Road. This road is to be capable of accommodating a bus route. c) A collector road running between Cavendish Road and a new north-south collector road (as in 35.a above). d) A fully interconnected local road network across the site that achieves a high level of accessibility for people, including opportunities for walking, cycling and public transport. This is to provide connections with Styx Mill Conservation Reserve, Tullet Park and existing roads. 4. STORMWATER a) A sustainable stormwater management solution for the neighbourhood integrated alongside open space reserves b) Enhancement of the habitat and ecological values of the Styx River and its margins in association with stormwater management and provision of reserves and to give effect to the Styx River/Purakaunui Area Stormwater Management Plan. c) Reconfiguration and enhancement of Highsted Stream to improve its capacity and functioning for stormwater management while ensuring habitat and ecological values are enhanced and developed d) Natural springs (if any) to be identified and safeguarded at the time of subdivision. 5. WATER AND WASTEWATER a) A water supply network, including the water supply main along the collector road.

87 Page 87 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A b) A pressure sewer network. Most of the area will discharge to the gravity main on Highsted Road. The properties on Cavendish Road will be serviced by a pressure sewer network, discharging to the gravity main on Cavendish Road. 6. STAGING a) There are no staging requirements beyond those relating to the provision of infrastructure.

88 Page 88 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A

89 Page 89 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A APPENDIX YALDHURST OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN A CONTEXT Located on the north western outskirts of Christchurch this neighbourhood will integrate with and consolidate the established and developing residential community of Yaldhurst Masham, including Delamain to the south and Kintyre Estate and Broomfield to the east. Land is zoned for a Key Activity Centre adjacent to Yaldhurst Road. A creek runs along the southern boundary of the neighbourhood. High voltage transmission distribution lines run through the neighbourhood. To the north is Christchurch International Airport and the 50DBA air noise contour affects the western part of the neighbourhood B GUIDANCE Guidance on the means to achieve the development requirements and form and design elements is provided within the Christchurch City Council s New Neighbourhood Design Guide C DEVELOPMENT FORM AND DESIGN The following design elements and features are relevant considerations in exercising control over the matters in A or the matters for discretion in A. They are not requirements which must be met to comply with Rule A(1) and Rule Consistency with the Outline Development Plan. 1. This new neighbourhood is to be established around the Key Activity Centre which will form a focus for the community. As with Delamaine the collector Road (Jarnac Boulevard) will be the spine of the new neighbourhood and a key structuring element. 2. Two other distinguishing features of this neighbourhood will be the green corridor associated with the transmission distribution lines and the creek. 3. Subdivision layouts will take advantage of recreational and amenity values, while at the same time limiting the impact of the transmission distribution lines and pylons. This will require careful consideration of road alignments, pedestrian/cyclist access points, orientation of lots and boundary treatments. 4. Subdivision layouts should be designed to take advantage of views to rural land to the west. 5. The development should retain an open and attractive interface with the adjoining open spaces. 6. All development is to provide a good interface with adjacent roads. This interface treatment should generally be consistent along the length of the road D DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS The development requirements which must be met to comply with Rule A(1) and Rule Consistency with the Outline Development Plan are described below and shown on the accompanying plan. 1. INTEGRATION a) There are multiple land owners within this ODP area and a number of existing properties. Subdivision designs shall provide for good connectivity between different land ownership areas through road, open space and pedestrian and cycleway linkages. b) Jarnac Boulevard will extend north through the site and connect the neighbourhood with Yaldhurst Road.

90 Page 90 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A c) Integration with the surrounding existing green network is required. This includes integration with Broomfield Common to the south, the transmission distribution line corridor and a possible future District Park to the west. 2. OPEN SPACE, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES a) Provision of a high quality public open space corridor along the existing creek and surface water channel alignments. b) A 20m wide landscape strip along SH73 to accommodate a range of functions including the following: i. East/West cycle and pedestrian movements along SH73. ii. On-site local vehicle access (note: access off SH73 is limited to a single roundabout intersection). iii. Screen planting in order to ensure a high quality visual interface between the development and SH73. iv. Ground/surface mounding, fencing and associated screen planting in order to reduce traffic noise from SH ACCESS AND TRANSPORT a) A primary north-south collector road. This route should provide access off SH73 via a roundabout (located at no less than 600m from the Masham Rd / Yaldhurst SH73 intersection) and run south through the site (west of the existing transmission lines) to join with Jarnac Boulevard. This route to be capable of accommodating a bus route as well as access to adjacent properties. b) A fully interconnected local road network across the site that achieves a high level of accessibility for people, including opportunities for walking, cycling and public transport. Including a loop road two roads through the eastern part of the neighbourhood connecting with the collector road and linking in to both ends of Rannoch Drive to form a loop road. c) There shall be no road access or direct property access to Yaldhurst Road other than via the collector road. 4. STORMWATER a) An integrated solution stormwater management solution for the neighbourhood which combines both engineered techniques and low impact stormwater attenuation, in general accordance with the Living G (Yaldhurst) Surface Water Management System Operation and Maintenance Management Plan. b) All watercourses in the neighbourhood are to be integral components of the open space network. c) Existing creek alignments should be retained and in some places widened, in order to help facilitate total stormwater detention across the site. The conveyance drainage network will feed to and utilise these alignments. d) Ensure the ddesign and operation of the stormwater management system so as to reduce the potential for bird strike issues associated with the operation of Christchurch International Airport. 5. WATER AND WASTEWATER a) Existing water and wastewater mains will need to be extended to service the ODP area. It will be the developer's responsibility to construct the new water supply and wastewater mains.

91 Page 91 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A

92 Page 92 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A APPENDIX RICCARTON PARK (RICCARTON RACECOURSE) OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN A CONTEXT Champions Mile Riccarton Park new neighbourhood is located on surplus land on the western part of Riccarton Racecourse. It borders the established residential areas of Broomfield and Russley. The Paparua Stream runs across the southern part of the neighbourhood linking Arcon Stream Reserve in the west and Showgate Reserve to the south east. The existing access to the racecourse from Steadman Road is tree lined and there are mature trees along part of Steadman Road, the stream and in the south eastern corner of the neighbourhood. On the racecourse site to the south east of the new neighbourhood there are a number of protected trees and two listed heritage buildings (Riccarton Racecourse Grandstand and Tea House). The site is bisected by the sprint track 'Chute' which must remain clear for racecourse operations. Due to the fragmented development areas and restricted access, road connections through the area are limited. Transmission Electricity distribution lines run parallel to the southern boundary of the neighbourhood B GUIDANCE Guidance on the means to achieve the development requirements and form and design elements is provided within the Christchurch City Council s New Neighbourhood Design Guide C DEVELOPMENT FORM AND DESIGN The following design elements and features are relevant considerations in exercising control over the matters in A or the matters for discretion in A. They are not requirements which must be met to comply with Rule A(1) and Rule Consistency with the Outline Development Plan. 1. This new neighbourhood is distinguished by its association with the racecourse and utilisation of the mature trees and the Paparua Stream. A sense of place is to be created by utilising these features. 2. Subdivision layouts are to be designed to take advantage of the existing tree lined access and the open outlook across the racecourse. 3. Retention of the mature trees along the access and any protected trees is maximised and the layout designed to ensure they have sufficient space. 4. Streets and paths are aligned to maximise visibility and accessibility of the stream corridor and focus on existing trees, and heritage buildings where possible 5. Development has a good interface with adjacent roads and the interface is consistent along the length of the road. Although there is no direct vehicle access from properties on Yaldhurst Road, the subdivision design encourages housing to relate well with Yaldhurst Road and complement the properties which front the northern side of the road. 6. A small scale community and commercial node, in a high profile location, may develop to serve the neighbourhood and adjacent existing residential areas, with opportunities for higher density development available adjacent to this node. 7. There is potential for a small scale community and commercial node, in a high profile location, to serve this neighbourhood and adjacent existing residential areas. The subdivision design should provide for this opportunity and higher density development could be established adjacent to this node.

93 Page 93 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A D DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS The development requirements which must be met to comply with Rule A(1) and Rule Consistency with the Outline Development Plan are described below and shown on the accompanying plan. 1. INTEGRATION a) Properties are to front onto Steadman Road where they adjoin the road. b) A screen planting strip adjacent to the Carmen Road/Masham Road (SH1) frontage shall be provided. c) To help mitigate the impact of the transmission distribution lines, special interface treatments such as deeper lots and boundary planting are may be required for adjacent properties. 2. OPEN SPACE, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES a) Two local reserves community (neighbourhood) parks to be located within the development to maximise the number of properties within 400m walking distance of these parks reserves. b) The stream corridor to be developed to provide for recreational routes and the potential enhancement of its aquatic ecology. 3. ACCESS AND TRANSPORT a) A network of pedestrian/cyclist routes through the neighbourhood and connecting to existing residential areas to the north and west, to and along the stream corridor, across the electricity distribution line corridor to Buchanans Road and forming part of a walking/cycling circuit around the racecourse that connects to Racecourse Road b) A loop road running through Area 1, with two access points from Yaldhurst Road c) An upgrade to the existing access from Steadman Road to form a collector road to the eastern boundary of the residential development area, with a private connection to the Racecourse Hospitality area. d) A second access road from Steadman Road to the collector road in Area 2. e) A second collector road which runs through the development area to connect to Zenith Place. Both collector roads shall be constructed to accommodate a bus route. f) Provision for a future road connection across the Chute to connect Area 1 and 2. f) The Yaldhurst Road/Steadman Road intersection shall be upgraded to include traffic signalisation, prior to the occupation of dwellings in Areas 2 or 3 of the development. g) The ability to provide a future vehicle connection between Area 1 and the adjacent racecourse facilities along Yaldhurst Road shall not be precluded. h) A footpath and required pedestrian refuges shall be constructed adjacent to development on Yaldhurst Road within the State Highway designation (between Cutts and Steadman Roads) prior to the occupation of any dwellings in Area 1. i) A footpath along the the Steadman Road boundary shall be constructed prior to the occupation of any dwellings in Areas 2 and 3 and a pedestrian refuge at the intersections of Cicada Place and Kinross Street with Buchanans Road shall be constructed prior to the occupation of any dwellings in Area 4.

94 Page 94 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A 4. STORMWATER a) The design and layout of the stormwater management system to utilise reticulation to convey stormwater from hard surfaces (including rooftops and roading) to adequately sized treatment and infiltration basins with all stormwater being discharged to ground soakage. b) Stormwater facilities shall consist of a soil adsorption basin to capture and treat the first flush, and an infiltration basin with a rapid soakage system to mitigate the 50-year critical storm. c) Overland flowpaths for all stormwater facilities spilling to Paparua Stream in extreme storm events d) The design and operation of stormwater facilities shall take into account the need to protect and enhance the Paparua Stream corridor and identify and safeguard springs (if any). 5. WATER AND WASTEWATER a) A new water supply main will be provided at Yaldhurst Road to service Area 1 and Tthe Water supply pipe network will be upgraded on Yaldhurst Road, Steadman Road and Zenith Place, Kinross Street and Cicada Place to service the remainder of the development area. b) Wastewater is to be reticulated, with Area 1 discharging via gravity to an existing main located in Yaldhurst Road. The wastewater flows for Areas 2, 3 and 4 will drain via gravity to a single pump station to be located on the northern side of the Paparua Stream. From the pump station, flows will be conveyed via rising main to an existing sewer in Buchanans Road. The storage in the pump station shall be sized to attenuate peak flows, to avoid exacerbating downstream overflows. The final location and detailed design of these facilities will be determined through the resource consent process.

95 Page 95 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A

96 Page 96 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A APPENDIX SOUTH MASHAM OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN A CONTEXT Located on the western outskirts of Christchurch this neighbourhood will integrate with and consolidate the established and developing residential community of Yaldhurst Masham, including Gilberthorpes School, the new neighbourhood of Delamain and Broomfield Common. Within the vicinity are a number of activities which need to be taken into account in the design of the residential community. A poultry farm is located immediately to the north-west. High voltage transmission lines run to the south west and distribution lines run to the east of the neighbourhood. The Islington substation and National Grid Operating Centre is located on the south side of Roberts Road. A quarry is to be established which will include part of the western edge of the neighbourhood. To the north is Christchurch International Airport and the 50DBA air noise contour forms the western boundary to the neighbourhood B GUIDANCE Guidance on the means to achieve the development requirements and form and design elements is provided within the Christchurch City Council s New Neighbourhood Design Guide C DEVELOPMENT FORM AND DESIGN The following design elements and features are relevant considerations in exercising control over the matters in A or the matters for discretion in A. They are not requirements which must be met to comply with Rule A(1) and Rule Consistency with the Outline Development Plan. 1. The major distinguishing feature of this neighbourhood will be the green corridor to the east. Layouts will be designed to take advantage of its recreational and amenity value, while at the same time limiting the impact of the transmission distribution lines and pylons. 2. The way in which development interfaces with its surroundings is critical to the quality of this neighbourhood. Careful consideration of road alignments, pedestrian/cyclist access points, orientation of lots and boundary treatments, is required. 3. There are a number of trees in the northern part of the neighbourhood which are to be considered for retention within the residential area. A sense of identity is to be created through incorporation of specific design features within the neighbourhood, such as street trees or boundary treatments. 4. To help mitigate the impact of transmission and distribution lines, special interface treatments such as deeper lots and boundary planting within lots, will be provided for adjacent properties. 5. Higher residential densities are expected towards Buchanans Road and the green corridor D DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS The development requirements which must be met to comply with Rule A(1) and Rule Consistency with the Outline Development Plan are described below and shown on the accompanying plan. 1. INTEGRATION a) There will be no direct vehicle access from properties to Buchanans Road however the subdivision design should encourage housing to inter-relate well with Buchanans Road.

97 Page 97 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A 2. DENSITY VARIATIONS a) The transmission lines and poultry farm will place restrictions on development which may limit residential development capacity. Rule A(2) density exemptions will may apply to this constrained area. 3. OPEN SPACE, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES a) A local reserve community (neighbourhood) park in the centre of the neighbourhood. 4. ACCESS AND TRANSPORT a) A collector road to connect with the collector road running between Buchanans Road and Yaldhurst Road (Jarnac Boulevard) This road is to be capable of accommodating a bus route. b) A footpath/cycleway to run from the collector road on the south side of Buchanans Road to Gilberthorpes School. c) At least three pedestrian/cyclist links from the neighbourhood to the green corridor to provide links between South Masham RNN and the existing residential area to the east. d) A fully interconnected local road network to link from the collector road to the western and eastern areas of the neighbourhood. This is to achieve a high level of accessibility and connectivity for people, including opportunities for walking, cycling and public transport and services. 5. STORMWATER a) Extension of the drainage and utility reserve which runs underneath the transmission distribution lines. b) A surface water management system consisting of above ground soil adsorption and infiltration basins and rapid soakage chambers shall be provided to treat the first flush of run-off and dispose of stormwater to ground soakage for all events up to and including the critical 2 percent annual exceedance probability storm. The design of the system shall have regard to the transmission distribution lines and the proximity of the Airport for risk of birdstrike. 6. WATER AND WASTEWATER a) A reticulated gravity wastewater system will be required within the Outline Development Plan area with outfalls to Roberts Road and the intersection of Buchanans and Gilberthorpes Roads. At least two thirds of the lots within the Outline Development Plan area shall discharge to the outfall at the intersection of Buchanans and Gilberthorpes Roads. b) Full high pressure water reticulation will be required to service development within the Outline Development Plan area. The connection points to Council's water supply network shall be on Buchanans Road directly opposite the site boundary, and on Roberts Road. 7. STAGING a) Development is anticipated to commence from Buchanans Road. The development of the south western area of the neighbourhood will be delayed until quarrying ceases. 8. ADDITIONAL SETBACK REQUIREMENTS a) Subdivision and development of the land located within the odour buffer area is to setback in accordance with Chapter 17 Rule Minimum separation distances - intensive farming, existing forestry, quarrying activity, residential activities and sensitive activities. Non-compliance

98 Page 98 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A with this matter is not a requirement which must be met to comply with Rule A(1) and Rule Consistency with the Outline Development Plan.

99 Page 99 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A

100 Page 100 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A APPENDIX WIGRAM OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN A CONTEXT The Wigram Outline Development Plan area is located on part of the former Wigram Aerodrome in the south west of the city. It is part of a larger neighbourhood developed under a former Living G zoning, known as Wigram Skies. This wider neighbourhood is characterised by substantial areas of conservation and open space and a commercial local centre, known as The Landing B GUIDANCE Guidance on the means to achieve the development requirements and form and design elements is provided within the Christchurch City Council s New Neighbourhood Design Guide. Further background and guidance is provided in the South West Area Plan, Christchurch City Council, April C DEVELOPMENT FORM AND DESIGN The following design elements and features are relevant considerations in exercising control over the matters in A or the matters for discretion in A. They are not requirements which must be met to comply with Rule A(1) and Rule Consistency with the Outline Development Plan. 1. A sense of place is to be continued from the adjoining Wigram Skies development which is centred around the former runway and a new town centre (The Landing) and acknowledges airforce associations, Tangata whenua values and enhancement of the Heathcote River and Haytons Drain. 2. The town centre provides a focal point for the wider community. 3. The town centre and its surrounds are provided to encourage is to have a more prominent built form associated with higher density development. Buildings with elements of additional height have been encouraged in the town centre to reinforce its role as a visual and activity focal point for the community D DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS The development requirements which must be met to comply with Rule A(1) and Rule Consistency with the Outline Development Plan are described below and shown on the accompanying plan. 1. A linear community park along the north-eastern edge of the neighbourhood following Haytons drain. The open space will accommodate stormwater infrastructure and help form a buffer between the residential area and the industrial area. The provision of open space to accommodate Haytons drain will provide an opportunity to protect and enhance ecological and tangata whenua values and restore wildlife habitat. 2. Community (neighbourhood) parks well distributed throughout the neighbourhood. 3. A collector road along the route of the runway, completing The Runway road between Awatea Road and Haytons Road. 4. A stormwater management system to include swales and flow paths as well as detention/soakage facilities within the public open spaces linking and containing the Heathcote River and realigned Haytons Drain. All stormwater systems will be designed in a manner which recognises the values important to tangata whenua particularly in regards to enhancing ecological values and water quality associated with the Heathcote River and Hayton Drain. 5. Residential density types are defined on the Outline Development Plan map or on an approved subdivision consent plan.

101 Page 101 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A

102 Page 102 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A APPENDIX AWATEA OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN A CONTEXT Awatea has a history of early Maori occupation. The name Owaka Road, recognizes the traditional 'waka' link from Knights Stream to the Heathcote River. Awatea means: light or bright pathway. From the midnineteenth Century the area was farmed. McTeigues Road and Carrs Road were named after early landowners who formed the roads. The extensive Mahurangi Reserve, incorporating the Heathcote River corridor forms the northern boundary of the neighbourhood, while the western, southern and eastern boundaries are formed by Wilmers Road, Halswell Junction Road and Wigram Road respectively. The Christchurch Southern Motorway bisects the neighbourhood, separating it into two communities, which are referred to here as Area 1, north of the motorway and Area 2, south of the motorway. The Little River Link cycleway, alongside the motorway, traverses the neighbourhood. Warren Park lies immediately to the west and Westlake Reserve is located to the east B GUIDANCE Guidance on the means to achieve the development requirements and form and design elements is provided within the Christchurch City Council s New Neighbourhood Design Guide. Further background and guidance is provided in the South West Area Plan, Christchurch City Council, April C DEVELOPMENT FORM AND DESIGN The following design elements and features are relevant considerations in exercising control over the matters in A or the matters for discretion in A. They are not requirements which must be met to comply with Rule A(1) and Rule Consistency with the Outline Development Plan. 1. Awatea is strategically located within the natural surface water system. The development of the neighbourhood provides the opportunity for better management of stormwater from the wider area. 2. New development should be designed to take maximum advantage of Mahurangi Reserve and river corridor and Carrs Reserve, through providing visual and physical access to them for residents and the wider community. The Mahurangi Reserve will be the major feature of Area 1. The development of this neighbourhood provides the opportunity to acknowledge the traditional 'waka' link, along the river corridor and southwards towards Knights Stream. Area 2 has Carrs Reserve as its centrepiece. 3. Development immediately adjacent to, or facing across a road to industrial zoned land or the motorway should be designed to provide a compatible boundary between the two uses. This may require a combination of larger section sizes, special building design and boundary planting. 4. Development is to face onto Wilmers Road, Owaka Road, Awatea Road and Wigram Road even where there is to be no direct property access to it. 5. New development is to have an open and attractive interface with all reserves in and adjoining the new neighbourhood. 6. Where existing properties and non-residential uses are to remain, larger section sizes and planting buffers adjacent to them, may be required. 7. Higher densities are anticipated in Area 1, around the junction of Awatea Road, Wigram Road and the motorway. Higher densities are also appropriate close to collector roads, reserves, the local

103 Page 103 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A commercial centre or any other community facilities. Larger sections sizes may be needed adjacent to industrial uses and transmission distribution lines. 8. Landscaping and indigenous plantings that emphasise the cultural history of Awatea should be incorporated into the subdivision design and reserve plantings. This includes the re-establishment of a section of the traditional Waka Trail where relevant. 9. There is potential for a pedestrian/cyclist overbridge between Carrs Road and Carrs Reserve to enhance and extend the connection to the Little River Cycleway D DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS The development requirements which must be met to comply with Rule A(1) and Rule Consistency with the Outline Development Plan are described below and shown on the accompanying plan. 1. INTEGRATION a) Awatea is surrounded by other residential neighbourhoods: Wigram, Westlake and Longhurst/Knights Stream. Convenient and safe access between these communities and their facilities and Awatea, for all users, is to be provided. b) There are multiple land owners within this ODP area and a number of existing properties. Subdivision designs will demonstrate good connectivity between different land ownership areas through road, open space and pedestrian and cycleway linkages. c) The boundary of Area 1, with industrial Zoned land and the motorway between Owaka Road and Carrs Road is to have a stormwater reserve of at least 10 metres wide, immediately north of the boundary, along its entire length. 2. OPEN SPACE, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES a) A site on Awatea Road in the centre of Area 1 is zoned Commercial Local, allowing for a small local centre to establish. b) A network of open space, integrated with stormwater management facilities, connecting Warren Park, Mahurangi Reserve, Carrs Reserve, Westlake Reserve. 3. ACCESS AND TRANSPORT a) Collector roads running west to east through Area 1, between Awatea Road and Wigram Road and between Wilmers Road and Carrs Road and through Area 2 between McTeigue Road and Wigram Road. These are to be capable of accommodating a bus route. b) A fully interconnected local road network across the site that achieves a high level of accessibility for people, including opportunities for walking, cycling and public transport. This is to provide connections with Wilmers Road, Awatea Road, Wigram Road, Mc Teigue Road and Halswell Junction Road, which bound the neighbourhood as well as Owaka Road and Carrs Road within the neighbourhood. Access for pedestrians and cyclists is required to the local commercial centre and reserves within the neighbourhood as well as recreational and community facilities in neighbouring suburbs. c) Connections to the Little River Cycleway from the north and along Owaka Road. d) Vehicle Access, Area 1a - when a road connection from Rich Terrace becomes available any existing vehicle access point to Wigram Road shall be closed.

104 Page 104 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A 4. STORMWATER a) An overall stormwater infrastructure system has been designed. It is important that as development occurs, stormwater is controlled in a manner that accords with this overall design. All watercourses in the area are to be integral components of the open space network. 5. WATER AND WASTEWATER a) Area 1, north of the motorway will be serviced by two connections to the water supply main on Awatea Road. Area 2, south of the motorway along Halswell Junction Road will be serviced by connections to the water supply main on Halswell Junction Road. New water supply mains along the collector roads will be required. b) Area 1 and 350, 396 and 410 Wigram Road is to be serviced by a gravity wastewater network with lift stations, discharging to the existing wastewater mains on Awatea Road. Some of the wastewater network has been constructed and this will need to be extended to service the remainder of the area. c) Area 2 (except for 350, 396 and 410 Wigram Road) is to be serviced by a gravity wastewater network, with a wastewater main from McTeigue Road, along the proposed collector road, discharging into the existing wastewater main on Halswell Junction Road. It will be the developer's responsibility to construct the new water supply and wastewater mains. 6. STAGING a) There are no staging requirements other than those relating to the Christchurch Kart Club (refer to Chapter 14 Rule Non-complying activities NC3).

105 Page 105 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A

106 Page 106 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A APPENDIX NORTH HALSWELL OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN A CONTEXT North Halswell new neighbourhood is located between the established settlements of Hillmorton and Halswell and immediately opposite the newer neighbourhoods of Aidanfield and Milns Estate. The extensive Hendersons Basin ponding area lies to the east. Nga Puna Wai Reserve and Sports Hub is located to the North West and Halswell Domain to the south. Views are afforded across Hendersons Basin to the Port Hills. Two watercourses traverse the neighbourhood from west to east - Days Drain and Dunbars Drain. A new Key Activity Centre and an adjacent exemplar comprehensive housing development (Meadowlands) are planned at the northern end of the neighbourhood. This area has been farmed since the mid-19th Century. Spreydon Lodge, at the northern end of the neighbourhood dates back to 1856 and was the farmhouse for Spreydon Farm. It is now one of the oldest houses remaining in South West Christchurch. Harness racing stables were established here in the 1980's B GUIDANCE Guidance on the means to achieve the development requirements and form and design elements is provided within the Christchurch City Council s New Neighbourhood Design Guide. Further background and guidance is provided in the South West Area Plan, Christchurch City Council, April C DEVELOPMENT FORM AND DESIGN The following design elements and features are relevant considerations in exercising control over the matters in A or the matters for discretion in A. They are not requirements which must be met to comply with Rule A(1) and Rule Consistency with the Outline Development Plan. 1. This new neighbourhood is to be established around the key activity centre proposed as a mixed use village centred focused around a main street. This will form a focus for the community. 2. Enhancement of the existing waterways will provide recreational and amenity corridors aligned to provide views to Hendersons Basin and the Port Hills. 3. Spreydon Lodge is to become a feature of the new neighbourhood, providing a link to the past. 4. There are trees along field boundaries and in the southern corner of the neighbourhood, some of which may be suitable for retention. 5. Development should have a good interface with adjacent roads and the subdivision design should encourage a consistent interface treatment along the length of the road. 6. Along Sparks Road and Halswell Road, where there is to be no direct vehicle access from properties, the neighbourhood is not to turn its back on the road. Instead appropriate treatment is required to complement the frontage of Hendersons Basin and Aidanfield and provide a high quality approach to the Key Activity Centre. 7. Residential development is to border the Key Activity Centre. It is be of a design and scale which is compatible with retail development on one side and residential development on the other. 8. Where existing properties are to remain and where the boundary of the RNN abuts properties in the Residential Suburban Zone (Hendersons Road), larger section sizes adjacent to them, greater building setbacks from the boundary and planting buffers may be required.

107 Page 107 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A 9. Higher density is to be focused around the Key Activity Centre. Smaller pockets of higher density can be located throughout the area, this may be close to collector roads or where there are open outlooks D DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS The development requirements which must be met to comply with Rule A(1) and Rule Consistency with the Outline Development Plan are described below and shown on the accompanying plan. 1. INTEGRATION a) Properties are to front onto Milns Road. b) There are multiple land owners within this ODP area and a number of existing properties. Subdivision designs shall provide for good connectivity between different land ownership areas through road, open space and pedestrian and cycleway linkages. c) To help mitigate the impact of the substation in Sparks Road and associated transmission distribution lines, special interface treatments such as deeper lots and boundary planting are required for adjacent properties. 2. DENSITY VARIATIONS a) The shape of Area 3, coupled with access limitations and its proximity to the substation and power distribution lines will may limit its development capacity. Rule A(2) density exemptions will may apply to this constrained area. 3. OPEN SPACE, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES a) Local reserves Community (neighbourhood) parks throughout the neighbourhood and recreational routes along enhanced waterways, including the green corridor through and in association with the Meadowlands Exemplar Development. 4. ACCESS AND TRANSPORT a) A collector road to run from the Halswell Road/Dunbars Road intersection to Sparks Road. This road to be capable of accommodating a bus route. This access will need to be integrated with the existing signals. b) A collector road to run from the Halswell Road/Augustine Drive intersection through the neighbourhood to Sparks Road or Hendersons Road, providing access to the Key Activity Centre. This intersection is to be signalised. c) A collector road to run northwards extending from Willam Brittan Drive. d) A collector road to run northwards extending from Milns Road. e) A third signalised connection with Halswell Road between Augustine Drive and Dunbars Road may be required to provideing access to the Key Activity Centre. f) Rerouting Milns Road through the southern part of Area 3 to improve the safety of the intersection of Milns Road with Sparks Road. g) A fully interconnected local road network across the site that achieves a high level of accessibility and connectivity for people, including opportunities for walking, cycling and public transport and services and that provides connections with Hendersons Road and Milns Road and the new collector roads.

108 Page 108 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A h) A network of pedestrian/cyclist routes, including the major cycleway (Quarrymans Trail) within the new neighbourhood and linking the surrounding communities with each other, Halswell Domain, the Key Activity Centre, Nga Puna Wai Reserve and Sports Hub and Hendersons Basin. i) Extension of the Quarrymans Trail being a major cycleway to follow along Sparks Road (where it will be part located within road reserve and partly within the ODP area) and/or through the ODP area. 5. STORMWATER a) Within the ponding area of Hendersons Basin, there shall not be a net increase in the flood water elevations for any storm events up to and including a two per cent annual exceedance probability design storm of 36 hour duration. b) Days Stream Drain and Dunbars Stream Drain will be naturalised and enlarged to convey a critical two per cent annual exceedance probability storm event from their respective contributing catchments and the slopes of the waterway banks shall be 1m vertical in 4m horizontal average or flatter. Days and Dunbars Streams Drains will be realigned to discharge into the future Christchurch City Council stormwater wetland to be constructed at 270 Sparks Road. c) First flush sedimentation and detention basins adjacent to Sparks Road to service new development and 38 hectares of existing developed catchment, excepting the sub-catchment in the southernmost part of the ODP area draining to the Milns stormwater facility. d) There are known to be springs throughout the neighbourhood, these are to be identified and safeguarded. e) The indicative stormwater management area at the eastern corner of the Outline Development Plan Area is to be the primary treatment and detention area for the full development area. As an alternative option which will reduce the overall area of stormwater land required along Sparks Road, first flush treatment basins may be shifted upstream to service sub-catchments, as indicated on the Outline Development Plan Area, subject to engineering design acceptance from Christchurch City Council. It is expected that any upstream (first flush) treatment basins will discharge directly to the CCC wetland at 270 Sparks Road either via separate pipe system or via Dunbars or Days Drains Streams, with overflow discharging into the detention basins. f) All first flush and detention facilities shall be designed with regard to the 'six values' approach to stormwater management and other relevant design criteria outlined in the CCC Waterways, Wetlands and Drainage Guide. The overall first flush and detention system shall provide "Full Flood Attenuation" for a 2 percent annual exceedance probability storm of 36 hour duration in accordance with Council's South West Area Stormwater Management Plan. Internal and external batter slopes of basins shall be 1m vertical in 4m horizontal average or flatter and 5 metre average landscaped setbacks from all residential allotments is required. 6. WATER AND WASTEWATER a) A pressure pump system to service the neighbourhood and the pump chamber for each allotment shall have a minimum total storage volume equal to 24 hours average sewer flow from the source. b) The approved sanitary sewer outfall for any proposed residential allotments will be the South East Halswell pressure sewer network. This includes pressure mains along Sparks Road and along the northern collector road, which will be constructed by Council. In the case of the Meadowlands Exemplar Zone the outfall will be to the Pump Station 42 catchment until the South

109 Page 109 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A East Halswell pressure sewer network is available, at which time these sites shall be connected to the South East Halswell pressure sewer network. c) Full high pressure water reticulation will be required to service development within the Outline Development Plan area. Water supply infrastructure requirements and any upgrades needed will be determined following the development of a water supply master plan for the Halswell Residential New Neighbourhoods. 7. STAGING a) Except for the Meadowlands Exemplar Zone, development cannot proceed until wastewater infrastructure is constructed. there are no staging requirements other than those relating to the provision of infrastructure.

110 Page 110 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A

111 Page 111 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A APPENDIX HENDERSONS OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN A CONTEXT The Hendersons Basin area was historically a major wetland/raupo swamp. Whilst it has been developed for farming over the last 150 years, it is still significant in terms of its ecological value and function as a natural ponding area. Cashmere Stream, which has historic, ecological and amenity values, traverses the area. The City Council owns land within the basin area and intends increasing the opportunities for wetlands, planting of native species and recreational use. Existing and future stormwater facilities will be a major feature of this neighbourhood. As development will not occur in one contiguous area, establishing connections with adjoining residential areas and integrating development with adjoining open spaces is vital to achieving walkable communities B GUIDANCE Guidance on the means to achieve the development requirements and form and design elements is provided within the Christchurch City Council s New Neighbourhood Design Guide. Further background and guidance is provided in the South West Area Plan, Christchurch City Council, April C DEVELOPMENT FORM AND DESIGN The following design elements and features are relevant considerations in exercising control over the matters in A or the matters for discretion in A. They are not requirements which must be met to comply with Rule A(1) and Rule Consistency with the Outline Development Plan. 1. The scope for development of the area for residential purposes is limited, as extensive filling for subdivision and building would reduce the storage capacity of the basin and increase the risk of flooding to local and downstream residential areas. Land development around parts of the basin's periphery is however possible and can be maximised through engineering works, in particular compensatory stormwater storage. Development of areas zoned Rural Urban Fringe is severely constrained due to its location in the flood ponding area. 2. Area 1 is to connect with SE Halswell RNN, Area 4 will form an extension of the Westmorland neighbourhood, Area 5 will form a link between the Westmorland and Cracroft neighbourhoods, but is to have its own identity. 3. New development is to be designed to take maximum advantage of the outlook across Hendersons Basin wetlands and allow visual and physical access to the basin for the wider community. This will be achieved through the provision of view shafts, alignment of roads and footpaths, orientation of lots and convenient access points for pedestrians and cyclists. 4. Cashmere Stream and its enhancement will be a key feature of this area. The Cashmere Drainage system is registered as an historic area under the Historic Places Act 1993 (List number 7482) this includes the drain which runs between Area 4a and 4b. This should be safeguarded and recognised through on-site interpretation. 5. Kahikatea stumps are noted in the South West Area Plan (Plan 5). These should be further investigated and addressed as necessary, through the development process. 6. An open and attractive interface should be created between the edge of new residential areas and adjacent open land. This may require roads to be located along the boundary with stormwater

112 Page 112 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A basin/recreational/conservation or rural land, or if private property boundaries back onto the open area, appropriate boundary planting or fencing is required. 7. Where public access along the Hendersons Basin edge is expected, a design solution which addresses privacy and security issues will be required. Consideration is to be given to the view of urban development across the basin from Sparks, Cashmere and Hendersons Roads. 8. To provide a less harsh edge to development, a more sinuous alignment of the boundary between the residential development area and adjacent rural zoned land is encouraged, providing there is no increase in the total development area. 9. All development is to have a good interface with adjacent roads. In general the subdivision design should encourage houses to front onto roads and the interface treatment should be consistent along the length of the road. 10. Where existing properties are to remain and new residential areas adjoin rural or existing residential areas, larger section sizes and planting buffers may be required. 11. Higher density development, above 15 hh's/ha, is anticipated in Area 5a, particularly at the eastern end and/or adjacent to the stormwater basin. In some parts of the neighbourhood 15hh's/ha may not be achieved due to development constraints. 12. There is an opportunity for interpretation boards and structures alongside the Cashmere Stream route to include history of the floodplain, raupo swamp and significance to tangata whenua D DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS The development requirements which must be met to comply with Rule A(1) and Rule Consistency with the Outline Development Plan are described below and shown on the accompanying plan. 1. INTEGRATION a) There are multiple land owners within this ODP area and a number of existing properties. Subdivision designs will demonstrate good connectivity between different land ownership areas through road, open space and pedestrian and cycleway linkages. 2. DENSITY VARIATIONS a) Area 2 - This area is on an isthmus of high land and access through the stormwater basin will be difficult. Rule A(2) density exemptions will may apply to this constrained area. b) Area 3 - The land slopes steeply up to Cashmere Road making both access to Cashmere Road and development on the slope difficult. There are also existing properties here. Rule A(2) density exemptions will may apply to this constrained area. c) Area 4 - The developable area will be impacted in Area 4.a by the realignment of Cashmere Stream and the need for compensatory stormwater storage and in 4.b., where there are existing buildings. Rule A(2) density exemptions will may apply to this constrained area. d) Area 5b - There are existing substantial properties, including those in Boonwood Close. Rule A(2) density exemptions will may apply to this area. 3. OPEN SPACE, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES a) Land for recreational/conservation use in conjunction with use for stormwater management. b) A community (neighbourhood) park along Sutherlands Road. c) The development of parts of a recreational route that connects from Sutherlands Road and runs through to Hendersons Road, running predominantly alongside Cashmere Stream.

113 Page 113 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A d) A recreational route to provide a link and a viewshaft from Westmorland to the basin area. e) An extension of the existing Kaiwara Street reserve. Should a road connection to Blakiston Street through the existing reserve prove acceptable, including from a parks planning perspective, the loss of the reserve will need to be compensated for through an enlarged reserve on the south side of the new road. 4. ACCESS AND TRANSPORT a) A secondary road through Area 1 to run from Sutherlands Road from a point immediately opposite the collector road running through South East Halswell RNN to Sparks Road. At least two road links are to be created from Sutherlands Road to the new secondary road. b) Road accesses between this RNN area and Sutherlands, Sparks and Cashmere Roads. These are to be safely located in relation to road accesses into S.E. Halswell and North Halswell RNN's, Redmond Spur subdivision and Westmorland. c) A road network which provides a connection between Cashmere Road and Hoon Hay but is designed to avoid traffic shortcutting between Westmorland and Hoon Hay. This is likely to be via Leistrella Road. Alternatively a connection from the end of Blakiston Street, may be possible. d) The junction with Cashmere Road is to be spaced a safe distance from Penruddock Rise. Alternatively a signalised crossroads with Penruddock Rise may be constructed. e) A fully interconnected local road network within Area 1 and Area 5, that achieves a high level of accessibility for people, including opportunities for walking, cycling and public transport. f) Pedestrian and cycle connections between residential areas and public spaces. g) Where development interfaces with Cashmere Road, provision will be made to enable local road widening to better manage the needs of cyclists in the area. 5. STORMWATER a) Land to be set aside for compensatory stormwater storage or other stormwater management as shown on the ODP. Where no such land is shown on an allotment which also has a residential development area, additional land may be required, to be determined at the time of subdivision. Further rural land may be required for stormwater management in the future. b) There are known to be springs in the western part of the neighbourhood. These are to be identified and safeguarded at the time of subdivision. c) Existing waterways and stormwater drains shown on the ODP are to be enhanced in conjunction with residential development. All watercourses are to have a natural form and may require realignment. d) Land set aside for stormwater management is to also incorporate wetland habitats, walkways and cycleways. 6. WATER AND WASTEWATER a) Most new development in this ODP area can be serviced from the existing water supply network. However a water supply master plan for the Halswell Residential New Neighbourhoods, to be developed by Council, will confirm the infrastructure required. Some additional improvements may be required upon further more detailed investigations being undertaken by Council and/or at the time of subdivision. b) Area 1 to be serviced by a pressure sewer area. New residential development will be required to connect to new trunk mains along Sutherlands and Sparks Roads. A pressure sewer along

114 Page 114 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A Cashmere Road serving the Redmund Spur subdivision, will be upsized for Area 2. The wastewater servicing of the remaining areas will be determined at the time of subdivision. c) No more than 487 houses in East Hendersons shall connect to the pressure sewer system in the Pump Station 68 catchment. 7. STAGING a) There are no staging requirements other than those relating to the provision of infrastructure. Development is however expected to generally proceed from existing roads inwards towards the basin.

115 Page 115 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A

116 Page 116 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A

117 Page 117 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A

118 Page 118 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A APPENDIX SOUTH EAST HALSWELL OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN A CONTEXT Located close to the centre of the Halswell community, this area has a number of established houses and mature trees and gardens. The neighbourhood is divided across the centre by a stormwater channel and tree belt running from Kennedys Bush Road to Sutherlands Road. The northern part of the area has high ecological values and is the site of traditional headwaters of the Cashmere Stream. The Quarry View subdivision forms a nucleus for development in the southern half of the neighbourhood. Views are afforded of the Port Hills and Halswell Quarry Park to the south and east B GUIDANCE Guidance on the means to achieve the development requirements and form and design elements is provided within the Christchurch City Council s New Neighbourhood Design Guide. Further background and guidance is provided in the South West Area Plan, Christchurch City Council, April C DEVELOPMENT FORM AND DESIGN The following design elements and features are relevant considerations in exercising control over the matters in A or the matters for discretion in A. They are not requirements which must be met to comply with Rule A(1) and Rule Consistency with the Outline Development Plan. 1. Advantage is to be taken of existing mature trees to provide an identity for this neighbourhood. 2. The design of Area 1, (north of the central stormwater channel) is be structured around the traditional headwaters, springs, a stormwater facility, and significant trees. 3. Area 2 (south of the stormwater channel) is to be designed around existing trees and a stormwater reserve, which has been established as part of the Quarry View subdivision. 4. Views southwards to the Port Hills and Halswell Quarry Park can be utilised to provide a sense of place, through the alignment of roads and reserves to form view shafts. 5. Kahikatea stumps and an archaeological site are noted in the South West Area Plan (Plan 5) near the junction of Sutherlands Road and Cashmere Road. These to be further investigated and addressed as necessary. 6. An appropriate treatment is required for the interface of development with Sparks Road, Sutherlands Road and Cashmere Road. 7. Mature trees and a drain run alongside much of Sparks Road and parts of Sutherlands Road, such that a green interface with limited access across it, may be appropriate in these locations. 8. The land slopes steeply up to Cashmere Road making both access to Cashmere Road and development on the slope difficult. An appropriate treatment for this rural/urban interface is required. 9. Where new residential areas adjoin existing properties or a rural zone, larger section sizes and planting buffers may be required. 10. Residential densities of at least 15 hh's/ha are anticipated in Area 2, with opportunities for higher density development opposite Halswell Quarry Park D DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS The development requirements which must be met to comply with Rule A(1) and Rule Consistency with the Outline Development Plan are described below and shown on the accompanying plan.

119 Page 119 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A 1. INTEGRATION a) There are multiple land owners within this ODP area and a number of existing properties. Subdivision designs will demonstrate good connectivity between different land ownership areas through road, open space and pedestrian and cycleway linkages. b) The subdivision layout will be designed to encourage houses to front onto Kennedys Bush Road. 2. DENSITY VARIATIONS a) Area 1 - Residential development in Area 1 is constrained by the smaller landholdings, the location of existing substantial houses, ecological features and the large number of mature trees. Rule A(2) density exemptions will may apply to this constrained area. 3. OPEN SPACE, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES a) A community (neighbourhood) park towards the centre of Area 1. b) An extension of the Quarry View reserve in Area 2. c) A recreational route that runs from the reserve in Area 1 to Sutherlands Road alongside an enhanced waterway, connecting with the recreational route through the Hendersons ODP area. 4. ACCESS AND TRANSPORT a) A collector road capable of accommodating a bus route. to connect with a collector road running between Halswell Road and Kennedys Bush Road (South Halswell ODP) and continuing through to Sutherlands Road. This road is to link into a section of the collector road which has been formed between Findlay Avenue and Provincial Road as part of the Quarry View subdivision. b) At least one road connection from the collector road in a northerly direction to link with the road network of Area 1. c) A road connection from Provincial Road to link with the road network of Area 1. d) A fully interconnected local road network across the site that achieves a high level of accessibility for people, including opportunities for walking, cycling and public transport and connections to the existing community and facilities of Halswell, particularly Halswell School, Halswell Quarry Park, bus routes and pedestrian/cyclist links and to the Hendersons RNN to the east of Sutherlands Road. e) Pedestrian/cyclist links from the northern reserve out to the perimeter roads and southwards to connect with the waterway and a pedestrian connection to Provincial Road. f) Where development interfaces with Cashmere Road, provision will be made to enable local road widening to better manage the needs of cyclists in the area. 5. STORMWATER a) Stormwater in Area 1. to drain to the stormwater facility on the eastern side of Sutherlands Road. b) Naturalisation, enhancement and realignment where appropriate of Cashmere Stream and the stormwater drains that run through the neighbourhood, along Sparks Road and Sutherlands Road. c) Natural springs in the western part of Area 1. around the headwaters of Cashmere Stream, to be identified and safeguarded at the time of subdivision.

120 Page 120 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A 6. WATER AND WASTEWATER a) Water supply infrastructure requirements and any upgrades needed will be determined following the development of a water supply master plan for the Halswell Residential New Neighbourhoods. b) Wastewater to be reticulated with a pressure sewer network, discharging to pressure mains to be constructed on the collector road and Sutherlands Road. 7. STAGING a) There are no staging requirements other than those relating to the provision of infrastructure.

121 Page 121 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A

122 Page 122 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A APPENDIX SOUTH HALSWELL OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN A CONTEXT This neighbourhood extends from below the hill slopes of the Hyndhope Road residential area to the established suburb of Halswell. It is bordered on its southern side by a low ridge culminating in a rocky outcrop. Green Stream runs across the southern part of the neighbourhood from Halswell/Tai Tapu Road (SH75) to Kennedys Bush Road. Across Kennedys Bush Road is the Halswell Quarry Park. Historic associations and connections with this area, include the former tramline that linked to Halswell Quarry and its use by local hapu and runanga. The southern western point of this neighbourhood defines the boundary of the urban area and appears as the entrance to Christchurch City when travelling from the south. Views are afforded of the Port Hills and Halswell Quarry Park to the south and east B GUIDANCE Guidance on the means to achieve the development requirements and form and design elements is provided within the Christchurch City Council s New Neighbourhood Design Guide. Further background and guidance is provided in the South West Area Plan, Christchurch City Council, April C DEVELOPMENT FORM AND DESIGN The following design elements and features are relevant considerations in exercising control over the matters in A or the matters for discretion in A. They are not requirements which must be met to comply with Rule A(1) and Rule Consistency with the Outline Development Plan. 1. This new neighbourhood is to be structured around the realigned corridor of Green Stream, stormwater facilities and land for recreational and conservation use in the south of the neighbourhood. Collectively these will form a 'green edge' to Christchurch. 2. Advantage should be taken of: views out to the south and south east by aligning roads and pedestrian/cycle routes to provide view shafts; the interface with Halswell Quarry Park and the link through the site from Larsens Road. 3. Any new facilities within the neighbourhood should be located such that they form or strengthen a community node, this is likely to be alongside Kennedy's Bush Road and/or the collector road. 4. Where existing properties are to remain larger section sizes and planting buffers adjacent to them may be required. 5. There is an opportunity for higher density development close to Kennedys Bush Road where advantage can be taken of the outlook to Halswell Quarry Park. 5. There is an opportunity to recognise Maori and European heritage in the design of this area. In particular the route of the former tramline to Halswell Quarry should be recognised and interpretation provided, to include the history of the tramline and local quarrying. 6. There is an opportunity to create a gateway feature at or near the south western corner of the neighbourhood, adjacent to Halswell Road, to mark the entrance to the city. 7. An archaeological site is noted in the South West Area Plan (Plan 5) in the vicinity of Halswell Road, it is to be further investigated and addressed as necessary.

123 Page 123 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A D DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS The development requirements which must be met to comply with Rule A(1) and Rule Consistency with the Outline Development Plan are described below and shown on the accompanying plan. 1. INTEGRATION a) There are multiple land owners within this ODP area and a number of existing properties. Subdivision designs will demonstrate good connectivity between different land ownership areas through road, open space and pedestrian and cycleway linkages. b) The subdivision layout shall encourage houses front onto Glovers Road and Kennedys Bush Road. c) Along the Halswell Road frontage, where there is to be no direct property access, the subdivision design will demonstrate an appropriate and attractive treatment along Halswell Road. 2. DENSITY a) Area 2 - The area adjacent to the Hyndhope Road residential area is to be developed at a low density due to parts of this area being lower lying, to contribute to the green edge and to ensure that new development is compatible with existing properties. Rule A(2) density exemptions will may apply to this constrained area. 3. OPEN SPACE, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES a) A green edge to the city comprising land for stormwater management, wetlands, recreational and conservation use. b) A recreational route to run across the southern part of the site to provide a direct connection to Halswell Quarry Park. c) Two community (neighbourhood) parks in the northern part of the neighbourhood. 4. ACCESS AND TRANSPORT a) No individual property access to Halswell Road. b) A collector road to run from Halswell Road from a point immediately opposite Candys Road through the neighbourhood across Kennedys Bush Road to connect up and align with the collector road through the South East Halswell RNN to the east. Other than the collector road, no additional road junctions with Halswell Road. This road to be capable of accommodating a bus route. c) A fully interconnected local road network across the neighbourhood that achieves a high level of accessibility for people, including opportunities for walking, cycling and public transport and connections to the existing facilities of Halswell, particularly Halswell School, Halswell Quarry Park, bus routes and pedestrian/cyclist links. d) Road connections from Glovers Road. e) A connection from the local road network in Area 1 to Area 2. f) Pedestrian/cyclist routes from Glovers Road and Kennedys Bush Road to link via reserves to the southern open space. 5. STORMWATER a) Extensive provision for stormwater management across the southern portion of the neighbourhood. Stormwater facilities and wetland habitats to be located adjacent to a realigned Green Stream.

124 Page 124 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A b) Swales to run from Glovers Road and Kennedys Bush Road to link to the eastern stormwater facility. c) There are known to be springs near the southern boundary. These are to be identified and safeguarded at the time of subdivision. 6. WATER AND WASTEWATER a) Water supply infrastructure requirements and any upgrades needed will be determined following the development of a water supply master plan for the Halswell Residential New Neighbourhoods. b) Wastewater to be reticulated with a pressure sewer network, discharging to a pressure main on the collector road to the east of Kennedys Bush Road. 7. STAGING a) There are no staging requirements other than those relating to the provision of infrastructure.

125 Page 125 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A

126 Page 126 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A APPENDIX SOUTH WEST HALSWELL OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN A CONTEXT Halswell has a history of early Maori occupation, followed by European settlement. This area has been farmed since the mid-19th Century. Quaifes Road and Candys Road were named after prominent early settlers. The Murphys, longstanding landowners, ran a dairy farm and dairy business. There is a large reserve to the west of Murphys Road (Longhurst Reserve) a large stormwater management area close to Sabys Road, Nottingham Stream runs along the southern edge of the new neighbourhood and several drains traverse the site. Views are afforded of the Port Hills to the south east and rural land to the south and west B GUIDANCE Guidance on the means to achieve the development requirements and form and design elements is provided within the Christchurch City Council s New Neighbourhood Design Guide. Further background and guidance is provided in the South West Area Plan, Christchurch City Council, April C DEVELOPMENT FORM AND DESIGN The following design elements and features are relevant considerations in exercising control over the matters in A or the matters for discretion in A. They are not requirements which must be met to comply with Rule A(1) and Rule Consistency with the Outline Development Plan. 1. This new neighbourhood is to be structured around: views out to the south west and south (by aligning roads to provide view shafts); a central spine collector road; stormwater management facilities and the Nottingham Stream corridor. 2. The neighbourhood is to be connected to the communities and facilities of West Halswell to the west and Halswell to the north and east. 3. Any new local commercial centres and/or community facilities within the neighbourhood are to be located such that they create or strengthen a community node, this is likely to be alongside the collector road and/or a reserve. 4. A new school is to be located at the corner of Murphys and Quaifes Road providing a focal point for the neighbourhood. 5. Specific boundary treatments should be considered along the entire length of the ODP boundary to provide a good interface with adjacent roads. The interface treatmentis will generally be consistent along the length of the road. 6. Higher density development is expected to be closer to the collector road, reserves, stormwater facilities or any community facilities. 7. Where existing properties are to remain larger section sizes and planting buffers adjacent to them may be required. 8. Talbot Reserve is well located to serve new development in its vicinity. Additional Neighbourhood Parks are to be well distributed throughout the neighbourhood D DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS The development requirements which must be met to comply with Rule A(1) and Rule Consistency with the Outline Development Plan are described below and shown on the accompanying plan.

127 Page 127 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A 1. INTEGRATION a) There are multiple land owners within this ODP area and a number of existing properties. Subdivision designs will demonstrate good connectivity between different land ownership areas through road, open space and pedestrian and cycleway linkages. b) The subdivision design will encourage houses to face onto Murphys Road. c) The subdivision design will demonstrate how an appropriate interface treatment is to be achieved between future housing and the following: Quaifes Road and the rural area beyond; directly with rural land; Sabys Road stormwater basin; Nottingham Stream, Talbot Reserve and new reserves and stormwater facilities. 2. OPEN SPACE, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES a) A recreational route adjacent to the rural boundary and Nottingham Stream. This to provide a connection between Longhurst Reserve, a stormwater facility close to Quaifes Road and Nottingham Stream. b) Talbot Reserve is well located to serve new development in its vicinity. Additional Neighbourhood Parks are to be well distributed throughout the neighbourhood. 3. ACCESS AND TRANSPORT a) A collector road to run through Area 1 between Murphys Road and Quaifes Road. The western end to be located immediately opposite Caulfield Avenue. At the eastern end, the point of connection to Quaifes Road to be approximately as shown on the ODP. b) A collector road to run between Quaifes Road and Candys Road. The eastern leg of Quaifes Road can be closed to through traffic at its western end once the collector road between Quaifes Road and Candys Road has been established. c) Road links between Quaifes Road and the collector road. d) A fully interconnected local road network across the neighbourhood and connected to the wider area via existing access points around the perimeter of the ODP in order to integrate the neighbourhood with the existing Halswell settlement. This network is to achieve a high level of accessibility for people, including opportunities for walking, cycling and public transport. An access point has been set aside in Country Palms Drive. e) Road connections in Area 2 between Quaifes Road, Sabys Road and the new minor arterial collector road. f) More than one road access onto Sabys Road from Area 3, to enable a loop road through the area. g) At least one pedestrian/cyclist access across Nottingham Stream to connect to Halswell Road. 4. STORMWATER a) A large stormwater facility, to be located close to Quaifes Road. b) A stormwater facility to be provided to service Area 3 either within Area 3 or located to the south. c) Existing waterways/drains which traverse Area 1 and Area 2 are to be naturalised, enhanced and realigned as necessary, to run into the new stormwater facility in Quaifes Road and the Sabys Road stormwater facility, respectively.

128 Page 128 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A d) The waterway which runs along Quaifes Road and the south western boundary of Area 2 to be naturalised and enhanced to become a feature of the new neighbourhood in conjunction with the recreational route. e) There are known to be springs in the western part of Area 1. These are to be identified and safeguarded at the time of subdivision. 5. WATER AND WASTEWATER a) Water supply infrastructure requirements and any upgrades needed will be determined following the development of a water supply master plan for the Halswell Water Supply Zone. b) Wastewater infrastructure requirements and any upgrades needed will be determined following the development of a wastewater master plan for the South West Halswell ODP area. 6. STAGING a) There are no staging requirements other than those relating to the provision of infrastructure. Possible alternative interim infrastructure solutions may be considered at the time of subdivision under Chapter 8, Rule Restricted Discretionary Activity RD2.

129 Page 129 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment A

130 Page 130 of 286 ATTACHMENT B: UPDATED EXCERPT FROM RESIDENTIAL STAGE 1 ACCEPT / REJECT TABLE _1.docx

131 Accept / Accept in Part / Reject Table CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 131 of 286 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment B Chapter 14 Residential (Stage 1) Key The final three columns on the right of this table indicate the Council's recommendation on the submission point as follows: A = submission point accepted A(P) = submission point accepted in part R = submission point rejected Black show the Council's position in Stage 1 (Scott Blair, Rebuttal Evidence). Where the Council's position has changed, a new is added in the appropriate column. The Stage 1 position is shown as 'Additional comments and Rationale' are set out in red text as this column did not exist in the Stage 1 residential Accept/Reject table. REBUTTAL EVIDENCE: Where the Council's position has changed as a result of Rebuttal evidence filed for the Residential New Neighbourhood (Stage 2) hearing, a new is added in the appropriate column. The previous position is shown as. Submissi on point number Furthe r Submi ssion Submitter Name Category Decision & Reason Additional Comments and Rationale A A (P) R NON RESIDENTIAL ACTIVITIES SUMMARIES Retirement Villages 14-Chapter 14 Amend to include "Elderly Persons Housing Units" (as defined) as a permitted Not considered appropriate _1.docx Page 1

132 Page 132 of 286 Submissi on point number Furthe r Submi ssion Submitter Name Category Decision & Reason Additional Comments and Rationale A A (P) R FS FS Association of New Zealand Ryman Healthcare Limited Residential > 14.6-Rules - New Neighbourho od Zones > Activity status table 14-Chapter 14 Residential > 14.6-Rules - New Neighbourho od Zones > Activity status table > Restricted Discretionary Activities activity subject to such Activity Specific Standards as may be considered necessary Amend as follows: The activities listed below are restricted discretionary activities. Discretion to grant or decline consent and impose conditions is restricted to the matters of discretion set out in 14.9 for each standard, as set out in the following table. For the avoidance of doubt, the Built Form Standards (14.6.3) do not apply to retirement village activities that are restricted discretionary activities. Activity: RD5 Retirement Villages where they are not provided for as a permitted activity The Council s discretion shall be limited to the following matters: a. Urban design and Maori urban design principles b. Scale of activity a. Assessment Matters for Retirement Villages Not considered appropriate _1.docx Page 2

133 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment B CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 133 of 286 Accept/Reject Table Residential New Neighbourhood Renotified South Masham And North Halswell ODP Key In the 'Accept/Reject' column the Council's position is represented by the following: A = submission point accepted A(P) = submission point accepted in part R = submission point rejected Submitter Submission Decision Request Decision Sought Accept/Reje No. No. ct Luneys Buchanan Limited 01 D1 Amend Amend the narrative attached to the South Masham Outline Development Plan (Appendix 8.6.5) as follows: 3.DENSITY Across the neighbourhood a density of 15hhs/ha is anticipated. Higher residential densities are expected towards Buchanans Road and the green corridor. The transmission lines and poultry farm will may place restrictions on development which may could limit residential development capacity within the areas identified as being subject to greater development R constraints. No compensatory density is required elsewhere within the neighbourhood in these situations. Christchurch City Council 02 D1 Amend Amend Appendix in accordance with Attachment 1 of submission. D2 Amend Amend Appendix in accordance with Attachment 2 of submission to exclude a triangular area in the northwest which falls between the 50dBA airport noise contour shown on Appendix and the urban boundary shown on Map A to Chapter 6 of the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement. A A 1

134 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment B CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal D3 Amend Amend Appendix by extending the area in the north Page 134 of 286 A west shown as "Residential development area with greater development constraints" eastwards to recognise the potential reverse sensitivity effects arising from odour from the neighbouring poultry farm. Fulton Hogan Limited 03 D1 Amend Amend the Outline Plan Introduction in Appendix as R follows: Within the vicinity are a number of activities which need to be taken into account in the design of the residential community. A poultry farm is located immediately to the north west. High voltage transmission lines run to the south west and east of the neighbourhood. The Islington substation and National Grid Operating Centre is located on the south side of Roberts Road. A quarry is to be established which will include part of the western edge of the neighbourhood. To the north is Christchurch International Airport and the 50DBA air noise contour forms the western boundary to the neighbourhood. A quarry is to be established which will include part of the western edge of the neighbourhood. Expansion of the current quarry prior to residential development taking place may be appropriate within the residential development area subject to the management of effects on the surrounding residential neighbourhood and provided extraction of the aggregate resource and subsequent site redevelopment is practicable and continues to enable future urban development. 2

135 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment B CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal D2 Amend Amend Section 3 of the narrative in Appendix as follows: Page 135 of 286 R The transmission lines, quarry, and poultry farm will place restrictions on development which may limit residential development capacity at least in the short term. D3 Amend Amend Section 8 of the narrative in Appendix as follows: Development is anticipated to commence from Buchanans Road. The development of the south western area of the neighbourhood will be delayed until quarrying ceases. Residential development on Lot 5 DP should be staged to enable the extraction of the underlying aggregate resource and subsequent site redevelopment, providing such redevelopment is practicable and continues to enable future urban development. It is recognised that owing to economic considerations, development of Lot 5 DP for residential purposes may not occur within the timeframes specified in the LURP. D4 Amend Amend Appendix New Neighbourhood South Masham Outline Development Plan so that the area currently consented for quarrying is included within the Residential development area with greater development constraints D5 Amend Remove Lot 3 DP 9514, Part Lot 4 DP 2934, and Lot 5 DP from Appendix New Neighbourhood South Masham Outline Development Plan. R R R 3

136 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment B CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Orion New Zealand Limited 04 D1 Support Retain the development requirements in the narrative wording for Appendix 8.6.4, particularly point 2(d) which states: "To help mitigate the impact of the substation in Sparks Road and associated transmission lines, special interface treatments such as deeper lots and boundary planting are required for adjacent properties." Page 136 of 286 A Danne Mora Holdings Limited 05 D1 Amend Amend Appendix North Halswell Outline Development Plan narrative to remove reference to the new Neighbourhood Design Guide. D2 Delete Delete Section 2b of Appendix North Halswell Outline Development Plan. D3 Amend Appendix North Halswell Outline Development Plan narrative Section 3 Density along the following lines: 3. Density A density of at least 15hh's/ha is required across the neighbourhood, with variety in density and housing types. Higher density is to be focused within and around the Key Activity Centre. Residential development around the Key Activity Centre is to be of a design and scale which is compatible with commercial development within the Key Activity Centre. Smaller pockets of higher density can be located elsewhere throughout the area, including close to collector roads or where there are open outlooks. The shape of Area 3 coupled with access limitations and its proximity to the substation and power lines may limit its development capacity. D4 Amend Amend the "indicative stormwater area" notation on Appendix by adding "(Maximum Area ha)" AP AP AP AP 4

137 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment B CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 137 of 286 D5 Amend Amend Appendix by deleting the small narrow A portions of the indicative stormwater area along Hendersons Road and Sparks Road. D6 Amend Amend section 6.a. of the narrative for the North Halswell Outline Development Plan (Appendix 8.6.4) as follows: Stormwater discharge to be in accordance with CCC South West Global Discharge Consent CRC120223, alternatively, AP Wwithin the ponding area of Hendersons Basin, there shall not be a net increase in the flood water elevations for any storm events up to and including a two per cent annual exceedance probability design storm of 36 hours duration. D7 Amend Amend section 6. of the narrative for the North Halswell Outline Development Plan (Appendix 8.6.4) by amending references to Days Stream and Dunbars Stream to read Days Drain and Dunbars Drain D8 Amend Amend Appendix by reinstating a reserve in the Exemplar Zone and a green corridor connecting Halswell Road and the indicative stormwater facility through the Exemplar Zone. A A 5

138 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment B CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal D9 Amend Amend section 5.c. of the narrative for the North Halswell Outline Development Plan (Appendix 8.6.4) to read Page 138 of 286 AP c. A third signalised connection with Halswell Road between Augustine Drive and Dunbars Road may be required to providinge access to the Key Activity Centre. This may be opposite or off-set from Aidanfield Drive. to reflect an agreement reached by traffic experts as part of the Stage 1 Commercial hearing that the access point opposite Aidanfield Drive was flexible as to its location and also as to whether it will be required. D10 Amend Amend sections 5.a. and 5.b. of the narrative for the North Halswell Outline Development Plan (Appendix 8.6.4) to read as follows: a. A collector road to run from the Halswell Road/Dunbars Road intersection to Sparks Road. This road needs to be capable of accommodating a bus route. This access will need to be integrated with the existing signals. b. A collector road to run from the Halswell Road/Augustine Drive intersection through the neighbourhood to Sparks Road or Hendersons Road, providing access to the Key Activity Centre. This road needs to be capable of accommodating a bus route. The Halswell Road/Augustine Drive This intersection is to be signalised. D11 Amend Amend section 5.f. of the narrative for the North Halswell Outline Development Plan (Appendix 8.6.4) to read as follows: f. A network of pedestrian/cyclist routes, (which may include a portion of the major cycleway (Quarrymans Trail) within the new neighbourhood and linking to the existing roads surrounding the ODP Area". AP AP 6

139 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment B CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal D12 Amend Make any consequential amendments to the North Halswell Outline Development Plan (Appendix 8.6.4) and the associated narrative that may be appropriate to ensure alignment is achieved with the objectives and policies of Chapter 8 Page 139 of 286 A D13 Amend Amend section 1. of the narrative for the North Halswell Outline Development Plan (Appendix 8.6.4) by deleting the word "centred" in the first sentence and inserting "centre". A Transpower New Zealand Limited 06 D1 Support Retain the south boundary of the South Masham New Neighourhood Area as shown on Appendix excluding the Islington Substation. D2 Amend Amend Appendix South Masham Outline Development Plan to clearly identify the Islington- Southbrook A transmission line as part of the National Grid, including a corridor that better indicates the activities anticipated in the vicinity of the national Grid. D3 Add Add a new non-complying rule that establishes a A protective corridor for the National Grid transmission lines in Rule in a similar manner to those agreed in relation to the rest of Proposal 14. D4 Add Include quarrying activities alongside sensitive activities and buildings in the new non-complying rule in D5 Add Make further, alternative or consequential amendments AP as may be necessary to fully give effect to the submission and the National Environmental Standards for Electricity Transmission AP A A 7

140 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment B CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 140 of 286 Oakvale Farm Limited 07 D1 Amend Amend Appendix North Halswell Outline R Development Plan by deleting "Area 3 Residential Development Area with greater development constraints" and reclassify this land as "Area 2 Residential Development Area". In all other respects retain the ODP and notations as notified. D2 Amend Amend the Development Context and Requirements for A North Halswell Residential New Neighbourhood to remove or amend proposed provision that increase uncertainty, 8

141 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment B CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 141 of 286 and are unnecessarily onerous, prescriptive and/ or complicated D3 Amend Amend the Development Context and Requirements for North Halswell Residential New Neighbourhood as follows: All development is to comply with the relevant Objectives, Policies and Rules of the District Plan. In addition tthe site specific requirements which must be met by developments in order to achieve compliance with rule [insert reference] are shown on the Outline Development Plan and/or described below. Guidance on a number of these Means of achieving the less tangible requirements are demonstrated is set out in the Christchurch City Council's New Neighbourhood Design Guide. D4 Support Retain Development Requirements: 1 SENSE OF PLACE (Turangawaewae) as notified. AP AP D5 Amend Amend Development Requirements: 2 INTEGRATION as follows: 2 INTEGRATION a. All development is to have a good interface with adjacent roads and the interface is to be which is generally consistent along the length of the road for the development. Along Sparks Road and Halswell Road, where there is to be no direct vehicle access from properties, the neighbourhood is not to turn its back on the road. Instead appropriate treatment is required to complement the frontage of Hendersons Basin and Aidanfield and provide a high quality approach to the Key Activity Centre. Properties are to front onto Milns Road where possible. 10

142 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment B CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 142 of 286 b. Residential development is to border the KeyAP Activity Centre. It is to be of a design and scale which is compatible with retail development on one side and residential development on the other. c. There are a number of land owners within this ODP area and a few existing properties. Particular care is needed to ensure that development is coordinated between landowners. Where existing properties are to remain and where the boundary of the RNN abuts properties in the Residential Suburban Zone (Hendersons Road) larger section sizes adjacent to them, greater building setbacks from the boundary and planting buffers may be required. d. To help mitigate the impact of the substation in Sparks Road and associated transmission lines, special interface treatments (such as deeper lots and/or boundary planting) are required for adjacent properties. D6 Amend Amend Development Requirements: 3 DENSITY as follows: 3. DENSITY A density of at least 15hh's/ha is required across the neighbourhood, with variety in density and housing types. Higher density is to be focused around the Key Activity Centre. Smaller pockets of higher density can be located throughout the area, this may be close to collector roads or where there are open outlooks. The shape of Area 3 the southernmost part of the ODP area, coupled with access limitations and its proximity to the substation and power lines may limit its development capacity, form or layout. AP 11

143 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment B CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 143 of 286 D7 Support Retain Development Requirements: 4. OPEN SPACE, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES as notified. AP D8 Amend Amend Development Requirements: 5. ACCESS AND TRANSPORT as follows: 5. ACCESS AND TRANSPORT The following are required to be provided for in the design of a subdivision and/or development by the developer. The costs of physically providing the following will be met by Council through development contributions and/or financial contributions.: a. A collector road to run from the Halswell Road/Dunbars Road intersection to Sparks Road. connect with the collector road running between Buchanans Road and Yaldhurst Road (Jarnac Boulevard) This road is to be capable of accommodating a bus route. b. A collector road to run from the Halswell Road/Augustine Drive intersection through the neighbourhood to Sparks Road or Hendersons Road, providing access to the Key Activity Centre. This intersection is to be signalised. footpath/cycleway to run from the collector road on the south side of Buchanans Road to Gilberthorpes School. c. A third signalised connection with Halswell Road between Augustine Drive and Dunbars Road providing access to the Key Activity Centre. This may be opposite or off-set from Aidanfield Drive. d Rerouting Milns Road through the southern part of Area 3 to improve the safety of the intersection of Milns Road with Sparks Road. d. e. An fully interconnected local road network across the site that achieves a high level of accessibility and connectivity for people, including opportunities for walking, cycling and public transport and services and that provides connections with Hendersons Road and Milnes Road and the new collector roads. AP 12

144 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment B CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 144 of 286 e.f. A network of pedestrian/cyclist routes, including the major cycleway (Quarrymans Trail) within the new neighbourhood and linking the surrounding communities with each other, Halswell Domain, the Key Activity Centre, Nga Puna Wai Reserve and Sports Hub and Hendersons Basin. D9 Amend Amend Development Requirements: 6. STORMWATER as AP follows: 6 STORMWATER The following are required to be provided by the developer: a. Within the ponding area of Hendersons Basin, there shall not be a net increase in the flood water elevations for any storm events up to and including a two per cent annual exceedance probability design storm of 36 hour duration. b. Days Stream and Dunbars Stream shall be naturalised and enlarged to convey a critical two per cent annual exceedance probability storm event from their respective contributing catchments and the slopes of the waterway banks shall be 1m vertical in 4m horizontal average or flatter. Days and Dunbars Streams shall be realigned to discharge into the future Christchurch City Council stormwater wetland to be constructed at 270 Sparks Road. c. The developer shall construct first flush sedimentation and detention basins adjacent to Sparks Road to service new development and 38 hectares of existing developed catchment, excepting the sub-catchment in the southernmost part of the ODP area draining to the Milns stormwater facility. d. There are known to be springs identified on the Outline Development Plan throughout the neighbourhood, these are to be identified and safeguarded. e. The indicative stormwater management area at the eastern corner of the Outline Development Plan Area is to be the primary treatment and detention area for the full development area. This is the preferred option. 13

145 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment B CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 145 of 286 f. As an alternative option which will reduce the overall area of stormwater land required along Sparks Road, first flush treatment basins may be shifted upstream to service subcatchments, as indicated on the Outline Development Plan Area, subject to engineering design acceptance from Christchurch City Council. It is expected that any upstream (first flush) treatment basins will discharge directly to the CCC wetland at 270 Sparks Road either via separate pipe system or via Dunbars or Days Streams, with overflow discharging into the detention basins. g. All first flush and detention facilities shall be designed with regard to the 'six values' approach to stormwater management and other relevant design criteria outlined in the CCC Waterways, Wetlands and Drainage Guide. The overall first flush and detention system shall provide "Full Flood Attenuation" for a 2 percent annual exceedance probability storm of 36 hour duration in accordance with Council's South West Area Stormwater Management Plan. Internal and external batter slopes of basins shall be 1m vertical in 4m horizontal average or flatter and 5 metre average landscaped setbacks from all residential allotments is required. h. Dewatering, land drainage or other interception/diversion of groundwater shall be managed so as to avoid adverse effects on other property and on the environment. D10 Support Retain Development Requirements 7. WATER AND WASTEWATER as notified D11 Delete Delete Development Requirements 8. STAGING 8. STAGING a. Except for the Meadowlands Exemplar Zone, development cannot proceed until wastewater infrastructure is constructed. There are no other staging constraints, however, development shall generally proceed from the existing built up area. A AP 14

146 Milns Road Farm Limited and Blakesfield Limited Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority for and on behalf of the Crown Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment B CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 146 of D1 Support Retain the proposed roading layout and stormwater AP network, including the provision of first flush basins for the southern portion of the North Halswell ODP. D2 Amend Amend the North Halswell ODP (Appendix 8.6.4) by shifting the reserve shown on the submitters' land to a position shown in Attachment 1 to the submission. D3 Amend Amend the wording under "Development Requirements" in Appendix by deleting the last sentence of the first paragraph, which reads "Means of achieving the less tangible requirements are demonstrated in the Christchurch City Council's New Neighbourhood Design Guide". 9 D1 Support Retain the access points to Halswell Road as shown in Appendix D2 Oppose Delete the introductory section of the narrative (i.e. the text in italics) in Appendix Development Context and Requirements. D3 Amend (a) Amend the introductory paragraph of Appendix under the heading "Development Requirements' as follows: All development is to comply with the relevant Objectives, Policies and Rules of the District Plan. In addition, the The site specific requirements which must be met are shown on the Outline Development Plan and/or described below. Means of achieving the less tangible requirement are demonstrated in the Christchurch City Council's New Neighbourhood Design Guide. A AP AP AP AP 15

147 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment B CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 147 of 286 (b) Retain the narrative under the heading "Development Requirements" except as otherwise requested in this submission. D4 Amend Amend section 1 of Appendix Development Requirements to: (a) Distinguish between firm requirements and general principles to be followed, and (b) Delete the final sentence to clarify the extent of any requirements to retain trees. D5 Amend Amend Appendix Development Requirements Section 2 Integration to make the extent and nature of development requirement clear. D6 Delete Amend requirements in Appendix Development Requirements Section 2 Integration by deleting the requirement that the development should not "turn its back" on main roads, where this could lead to unintended outcomes for future residents and design of the ODP. D7 Support Retain Appendix Development Requirements Section 5 Access and Transport as notified. D8 Amend Amend Appendix Development Requirements section 6 Stormwater as follows: (a) Include appropriate subheadings to aid navigation. (b) Delete reference to matters that are adequately covered in subdivision matters for discretion, such as urban design. (c) Reword clauses (d), (e) and (f) as follows: d. There are known to be ssprings throughout the neighbourhood, these are to be identified and safeguarded. A A A AP AP 16

148 Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment B CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 148 of 286 e. The indicative stormwater management area at the eastern corner of the Outline Development Plan Area is to be the primary treatment and detention area for the full development area except as described in (f) below. This is the preferred option. f. As an alternative option which will To reduce the overall area of stormwater land required along Spark Road... D9 Support Retain the road access points as shown in Appendix A D10 Oppose (a) Delete the introductory section of the narrative (i.e. the text in italics) in Appendix Development Context and Requirements and (b) Include any specific development requirements from this section in the relevant places under the heading "Development Requirements" D11 Amend (a) Amend the introductory paragraph under the heading "Development Requirements" in Appendix as follows: All development is to comply with the relevant Objectives, Policies and Rules of the District Plan. In addition, the The site specific requirements which must be met are shown on the Outline Development Plan and/or described below. Means of achieving the less tangible requirement are demonstrated in the Christchurch City Council's New Neighbourhood Design Guide. (b) Retain the narrative under the heading "Development Requirements" except as otherwise requested in this submission. D12 Oppose Delete Section 1 of Appendix AP A AP 17

149 Across the neighbourhood a density of 15hh's is anti must be achieved... Sarah Oliver, Rebuttal Evidence, Attachment B CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 149 of 286 D13 Amend Amend Section 3 of Appendix to read as follows: AP D14 Support Retain Section of Appendix as notified. AP D15 Amend Amend the ODP maps and text to more clearly articulate the constraints to development and the anticipated development type in those areas. A 18

150 ATTACHMENT C: SECTION 32 REPORT CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 150 of 286

151 Page 151 of 286 RESIDENTIAL NEW NEIGHBOURHOOD SECTION 32 UPDATED 5 JANUARY 2016 CHAPTER 8 SUBDIVISION, DEVELOPMENT AND EARTHWORKS AND CHAPTER 14.6 RESIDENTIAL NEW NEIGHBOURHOOD ZONE Page 1

152 Page 152 of 286 CONTENTS CONTENTS STRATEGIC CONTEXT SCALE AND SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ISSUES UPDATED RESIDENTIAL NEW NEIGHBOURHOOD PROVISIONS - 5 JANUARY ADDRESSING THE ISSUES EVALUATION OF OBJECTIVES EVALUATION OF RNN PROPOSED POLICIES, RULES AND METHODS ZONING AND RULES ASSOCIATED WITH THE OPERATIVE LIVING G ZONE REZONING OF GREENFIELD PRIORITY AREAS UNDER THE CANTERBURY REGIONAL POLICY STATEMENT, CHAPTER SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION Appendix 1: New Neighbourhood Comprehensive Subdivision process Appendix 2: Draft greenfield residential subdivision - urban design issues and recommendations report - Context Urban Design Limited Appendix 3: Towards A Rationalisation Of Zoning Of Residential Greenfield Priority Areas Page 2

153 Page 153 of STRATEGIC CONTEXT 1.1. WHAT THE RESIDENTIAL NEW NEIGHBOURHOOD PROVISIONS DO FOR HOUSING The residential new neighbourhood provisions will be instrumental in addressing Christchurch s housing issues (which are defined within this report at 2.2) by: 1. providing a more efficient and less onerous regulatory environment, in particular by reducing consenting and notification requirements; 2. making it easier for residential properties to be redeveloped to provide a greater supply and range of housing types and sizes; 3. immediate rezoning of Greenfield priority areas where infrastructure is available; 4. a simple and straightforward regulatory framework for specialised housing needs, including provision for social housing; 5. enabling the market to provide for the needs of an ageing population and to meet the demand for smaller household units; 6. recognising and providing for the needs of Maori; 7. ensuring that future communities are close to services and are able to incorporate high standards of infrastructure provision; 8. distributing higher density housing areas in a manner that best serves the overall interests of the District; 9. protecting the environmental, heritage and character values that give urban areas their unique character and to help mitigate the effects of buildings and infrastructure; and 10. ensuring that new housing stock is built sustainably and meets the needs of its occupants at all stages of their lives; and 11. ensuring subdivision, development and earthworks to ensure does not adversely effect environmental, economic, social, and cultural conditions across the district SCOPE OF THE RESIDENTIAL NEW NEIGHBOURHOOD PROVISIONS The notified provisions that are the subject of this section 32 evaluation are: Policy (a) (Urban density) only Subdivision (Stage 2) Policy (Additional subdivision design for greenfields Subdivision (Stage 1) residential areas) Rule (3) (Activity standards) Subdivision (Stage 1) The exemption in rule (Written approval and nonnotification) Part of rule (RD2)(1) and (2)(Restricted discretionary activities - allotment size and dimension) Subdivision (Stage 1) Subdivision (Stage 1) Rule Compliance with Outline Development Plan Subdivision (Stage 1) All rules in (New Neighbourhood Zone) Subdivision (Stage 1 and 2) All assessment matters in (Assessment matters - New Subdivision (Stage 1) Neighbourhood Zone) Appendix (North Halswell Outline Development Plan) Subdivision (Stage 1) Page 3 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

154 Page 154 of 286 excluding the Meadowlands Exemplar Zone Appendix (Buchanans Road Outline Development Plan) Subdivision (Stage 1) Appendix (Plant Species Highsted) Subdivision (Stage 2) Appendix a (Outline Development Plan (Highfield Park) North) Appendix b (Outline Development Plan (Highfield Park) South) Subdivision (Stage 2) Subdivision (Stage 2) Appendix c (Highfield Park Planting List) Subdivision (Stage 2) Objective (a)(iv) Residential (Stage 1) Objective (a)(iii) Residential (Stage 1) Objective and policies Residential (Stage 1) (and Stage 2 in relation to policy (b)) Policy (a)(iv) Residential (Stage 1) All rules and standards in 14.6 Residential (Stage 1 and 2) Matter of discretion Residential (Stage 1) Matter of discretion Residential (Stage 1) Matter of discretion any additional matters of discretion [None were notified on 28 September 2015] Appendices Residential (Stage 2) Appendices Residential (Stage 2) Appendices Residential (Stage 2) Appendices Residential (Stage 2) Appendices Residential (Stage 2) Appendices Residential (Stage 2) Appendix Residential (Stage 2) Appendix Residential (Stage 2) Appendix Residential (Stage 2) Appendix Residential (Stage 2) Appendix Residential (Stage 2) Appendix Residential (Stage 2) Appendix Residential (Stage 2) Appendix Residential (Stage 2) Appendix Residential (Stage 2) Appendix Residential (Stage 2) Any definitions that will assist with the understanding of the Proposal. North Halswell ODP and proposal South Masham ODP and proposal New Neighbourhood Proposal (28 September 2015) 1.3. BACKGROUND, RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION 1. The Council has commissioned technical advice and assistance from various internal and external experts and utilised this, along with internal workshops and community feedback, to assist with setting the plan framework for the proposed residential new neighbourhood chapter provisions (refer to Table 1 below). In addition to the above Page 4 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

155 reports and advice, the Council has compiled, reviewed and developed a collection of material on residential issues (refer to Bibliography). This information has been used to inform the DPR and this s32 report. Table1: Reports commissioned by the Christchurch City Council for the review of the residential new neighbourhood provisions. Title Author Description of Report 1. New Neighbourhood Comprehensive and subdivide first process Appendix 1 Christchurch City Council development. 3 Draft greenfield residential subdivision - urban design issues and recommendations report Appendix 2 4. Towards a rationalisation of Living G Appendix 3 Janet Reeves, Context Urban Design Janet Reeves, Context Urban Design CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 155 of 286 Compares the different process options for subdivision and comprehensive Critical reviews of greenfield growth areas developed over the last years under the operative Living G Christchurch City Plan provisions, with particular focus on poor outcomes and recommended improvements to the District Plan provisions to better achieve higher order objectives and policies. Page 5 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

156 Page 156 of STRATEGIC PLANNING DOCUMENTS Many of the resource management issues facing the development of new neighbourhood areas, are of a strategic nature and therefore consideration has already been given to the strategic policy direction in higher order documents. Those strategic matters and provisions that have been specifically given effect to or had regard to in this chapter are summarised in the table below. Table 2: Higher order and guiding documents relevant to the residential new neighbourhood provisions. Document (Statutory obligation in brackets) 1. Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch Replacement District Plan) Order in Council 2014 Relevant provisions the residential new neighbourhood provisions are required to take into account/give effect to The process for the DPR is prescribed by the Order in Council made by Government on 7 July The Order in Council modifies the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) to provide a streamlined process for the review of the Christchurch District Plans and preparation of a replacement District Plan. The Order in Council states that the Council must have particular regard to the Statement of Expectations (schedule 4 of the Order in Council). The relevant expectations for the Residential Chapter include: a. clearly articulates how decisions about resource use and values will be made, which must be in a manner consistent with an intention to reduce significantly (compared with the existing district plans) i. reliance on resource consent processes; and ii. the number, extent, and prescriptiveness of development controls and design standards in the rules, in order to encourage innovation and choice; and iii. the requirements for notification and written approval: b. contains objectives and policies that clearly state the outcomes that are intended for the Christchurch district c. (i) uses clear, concise language and is easy to use 2. The CRPS - proposed District Plan must give effect to 3. The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Strategy proposed District Plan must not be inconsistent with a. Chapters 5 and 6 1 Directs that residential growth is to be consolidated, integrated land use and infrastructure development, focused within existing urban areas, and provides for a range of house options (choice) and achieves good urban design. The Recovery Strategy lists six components of recovery each with associated goals. Those goals that are given specific effect to in these provisions are: a. facilitating a timely and efficient recovery, including intervening where necessary to remove impediments, resolve issues and provide certainty; b. supporting people, in particular those facing hardship and uncertainty, by providing quality housing, education and health services; c. acknowledging and celebrating the rich and diverse Ngāi Tahu, colonial and other heritages and connections; Page 6 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

157 Page 157 of The LURP proposed District Plan must not be inconsistent with 5. The Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan (IMP) proposed District Plan must have regard to 6. Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy and Action Plan 2007 (UDS) Action Plan proposed District Plan should have regard to 7. South West Area Plan (SWAP) proposed District Plan should have regard to 8. Belfast Area Plan (BAP) proposed District Plan should have regard to 9. New Zealand Urban Design Protocol d. supporting innovative urban design, buildings, technology and infrastructure to redefine greater Christchurch as a safe place for the future; e. zoning sufficient land for recovery needs within settlement patterns consistent with an urban form that provides for the future development of greater Christchurch; and f. having a range of affordable housing options connected to community and strategic infrastructure that provides for residents participation in social, cultural and economic activities. a. Actions 2, 7, 11, 19, 42 and 45 Directs the DPR to provide for housing choice, affordability, community facilities, intensification, revitalising neighbourhood centres, improved accessibility, the building of new communities, and streamlining regulation. a. Directs that participation and particular interests of Ngāi Tahu Papatipu Runanga are recognised and provided for in urban and township planning. Recognising and providing for sites and places of importance and special values to tangata whenua. Recognising and providing for papakāinga and marae, and activities through including objectives that specifically identify the importance of papakāinga development to the relationship of Ngāi Tahu and their culture and traditions to ancestral land; and zoning and housing density policies and rules that are specific to enabling papakāinga and mixed use development; and that avoid unduly limiting the establishment of papakāinga developments through obligations to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on the environment. a. Promotes integrated land use and infrastructure development, an appropriate housing mix, and housing that is affordable, sustainable, of a high quality and accessible to key services. Ensuring neighbourhoods are safe and that houses provide for multigenerational and extended families. a. The objectives in the SWAP are of particular relevance to new Greenfield development, both for residential and business development. SWAP provides direction for the comprehensive and integrated development of some 8000ha of land in the south-west of Christchurch. SWAP contains goals, objectives and policies, including detailed plans for new growth areas, to support the development of residential land to accommodate some 12,000 new households and over 300 hectares of new business land. a. The objectives in BAP are of particular relevance to new greenfield development, both for residential and business development. BAP provides direction for the comprehensive and integrated development of some 1350 hectares of land in northern Christchurch. BAP contains goals, objectives and policies, including detailed plans for new growth areas, to support the development of residential land to accommodate some 2,500 new households and 98 hectares of new business land. a. The New Zealand Urban Design Protocol is a voluntary commitment to specific urban design initiatives by signatory organisations, which include central and local government, the property sector, design professionals, professional institutes and other groups. Christchurch City Council is a signatory to the New Zealand Urban Design Page 7 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

158 10. Ministry of Justice Guidelines for Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (2005) Protocol. a. Sets out a framework for incorporating crime prevention into quality urban designs. Principles include safe movement and connections; See and be seen; clear and logical and orientation; eyes on the street; showing a space is cared for; well-designed, managed and maintained environments; and using active security measures. 11. Health in all Policies Approach a. An approach to public policies across sectors that systematically takes into account the health implications of decisions, seeks synergies, and avoids harmful health impacts, in order to improve population health and health equity. 12. Replacement District Plan - Strategic Directions The proposed Strategic Directions chapter provides the following policy direction for residential activity in Christchurch: the recovery and development of Christchurch as a dynamic and internationally competitive city with: sufficient land to meet the community s immediate recovery and longer term needs or housing; a range of housing options including affordable housing and papakainga housing; a quality urban environment; CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 158 of 286 recognition of the ancestral and contemporary relationship between Ngāi Tahu and the land; and revitalised communities where people enjoy a high quality of life; development design and quality in accordance with the principles of the New Zealand Urban Design Protocol 2005; an integrated pattern of development that promotes consolidation of the urban form; sufficient provision for greenfield land and residential activities; coordination of residential growth with infrastructure provision; and limiting the adverse effects of activities on the efficient and effective functioning, maintenance and upgrading of infrastructure, including reverse sensitivity effects. The following objectives are considered to be of greatest relevance to the Residential New Neighbourhood zones, the supporting Outline Development Plans and provisions to manage land-use and subdivision activities within these new neighbourhood areas Objective - Enabling recovery and facilitating the future enhancement of the district Objective - Clarity of language and efficiency Objective - Ngāi Tahu Manawhenua Objective - Housing capacity and choice Objective Natural hazards Objective Urban growth, form and design Objective Natural and cultural environment Objective Community facilities and education activities Objective Infrastructure Objective - Incompatible activities (d)Objective Temporary recovery activities Page 8 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

159 Page 159 of Replacement District Plan - Residential Chapter 14 (Stage 1) The following Residential Chapter (Stage 1) objectives and policies are considered to be of relevance to the Residential New Neighbourhood zones, the supporting Outline Development Plans and provisions to manage land-use and subdivision activities within these new neighbourhood areas Objective - Housing supply Policy - Housing distribution and density Policy - Needs of Ngāi Tahu whānui Policy Provision of social housing Policy Non-household residential accommodation Policy Provision of housing for an aging population Policy Monitoring Objective Short term residential recovery needs Objective Strategic infrastructure Policy Avoidance of adverse effects on strategic infrastructure Objective High quality residential environments Policy Neighbourhood character, amenity and safety Policy Scale of home occupations Policy Best practice for health, building sustainability, energy and water efficiency Objective Non-residential activities Policy Residential coherence character and amenity Policy - Community activities and facilities Policy Other non-residential activities Policy Retailing in residential zones 1 New Chapter 6 inserted on 7 th December 2013 pursuant to section 24(1)(a) and (b) of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act SCALE AND SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION The level of detail undertaken for the evaluation of the proposed District Plan provisions has been determined by an assessment of the scale and significance of an issue affected by the proposed District Plan provisions. The scale and significance assessment considers the environmental, economic, social and cultural effects of the issue being considered. In making this assessment regard has been had to the following, namely whether the provisions: a. are of regional or city wide significance; b. impede or promote the city s recovery; c. adversely affect people s health and safety; d. result in a significant change to the character and amenity of local communities; e. have effects on resources that are considered to be a matter of national importance in terms of s 6 of the Resource Management Act; f. adversely affect those with particular interests including Maori (consideration needs to be given to whether there is certainty of effects based on the availability of information to assess benefits and costs); g. limit options for future generations to remedy effects; h. whether the effects have been considered implicitly or explicitly by higher order Page 9 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

160 documents; and i. whether the provisions include regulations or other interventions that will impose significant costs on individuals or communities. The level of evaluation able to be undertaken through this s32, has been significantly influenced by the truncated process and timeframe for the DPR. Notwithstanding this, accommodating residential household demand and providing housing choice for the recovery and growth through new residential neighbourhoods is considered to be a significant issue for the following reasons: a. Residential New Neighbourhood Zones are proposed in greenfield growth areas identified in the CRPS. b. Whilst they are focused on particular areas, the potential effects of the mixes of activities and type of housing have the potential to be significant if not appropriately located and potential adverse effects managed. c. This matter is of importance to the City s recovery, in particular to provide adequate opportunity for new housing. CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 160 of 286 d. Inadequate housing to meet recovery needs will adversely affect peoples health and safety. 3. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ISSUES The resource management issues set out in this section have been identified mainly from the following sources: a. primary and secondary research ( refer to attached bibliography); b. public feedback and comment through various sources including the media, public engagement and annual residents surveys; c. academic press; d. monitoring and review of the operative District Plan s; and e. matters raised in various forums by statutory partners RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ISSUE 1 Accommodating residential household demand and providing housing choice for the recovery and growth. This issue comprises several components, some of which touch on other issues: a. how much urban growth is needed to accommodate demand and enhance affordability? b. where should that growth go? c. how much should be new development as opposed to redevelopment and infill? d. how is housing choice to be incorporated into zoning provisions? and e. how is recovery housing different from growth housing? Policy direction for the provision of residential development and redevelopment is provided for under the CRPS under chapters 5 and 6, and the proposed District Plan s Strategic Directions chapter. More specifically they direct that: greenfield expansion occurs in specific locations adjacent to the current urban edge; greenfield areas provide a range of housing types and densities; increased density occurs within and around the Central City, KACs and large Neighbourhood Centres; and gradual infill occurs across the balance of suburban Christchurch in a manner that is compatible with the valued low density suburban character. Page 10 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

161 Page 161 of 286 Targets for intensification are set under chapter 6 of Objective under the CRPS. Greenfield areas within Christchurch city are required to deliver 15 household units per hectare. Intensification development within Christchurch city is required to achieve 50 household units per hectare within the Central City and 30 households units per hectare outside of the Central City. Provision is also directed to be made for comprehensive development across multiple or amalgamated sites, and the recovery and regeneration of brownfield land through new comprehensive residential, mixed-use or business development is also promoted. Housing affordability is directed under the CRPS to be addressed by providing sufficient intensification and greenfield development and brownfield redevelopment; and by providing a range of lot sizes, densities and appropriate development controls that support more intensive development (refer to CRPS, chapter 6, Policy 6.3.7(6)). However, there is no indication as to whether there is sufficient land provided to affect affordability levels, or how zoned land becomes ready for housing at a rate that will impact on section prices. Other non-district Plan methods are available and if implemented could improve housing affordability. A further overarching housing issue relates to ensuring that residential development and redevelopment (particularly in greenfield areas where there is greatest opportunity) does not adversely affect tangata whenua values and opportunities to enhance tangata whenua values are realised. Specifically how and where this residential development and redevelopment direction is applied is the main issue for the Residential chapter of the District Plan. The operative plan currently uses zoning and subdivision and residential bulk, location and activity rules to implement the objectives and policies and control the effects of subdivision and land-use activities. The Banks Peninsula District Plan also contains specific zoning for residential development and provisions concerning subdivision and residential development. Both Plans were prepared in the context of the older and less directive RPS (1998 version) which has now been superseded by the CRPS. Some changes to the Christchurch City Plan have already been made through the LURP to address housing recovery issues (i.e. enabling one house to be converted to two and two houses to replace one house that has been demolished as a consequence of the earthquakes). Both district plans can however be strengthened further to address recovery issues relating to housing, in particular with regard to housing supply, choice and density. The distinctions between different residential zones are important to maintain in order to provide for diverse living environments and to protect the essentially different characters of areas of the City. Providing for different densities in identified locations respects the existing built form and relationship between open space and buildings. Managing the effects of greenfield development and ensuring such development achieves best practice in terms of urban planning, has been a strong focus for the Council for the last 10 years. The Council through its South-West Christchurch and Belfast Area Plans, and a number of private requests and plan changes, have set high standards for Greenfield subdivisions. Many of the Greenfield areas rezoned over the last 10 years have been developed and/or subdivision and land-use consents granted. However, a major district plan issue is the sheer number of Greenfield related objectives, policies and rules; the minor inconsistencies between some provisions; and the repetitiveness of some objectives and policies. This has been caused through a series of rezoning decisions where the scope of the proposed Plan Change has been limited, thereby requiring new provisions being developed for a specific area. Notwithstanding this, the policy direction for many of the provisions is still sound and justified against the higher order planning directives for integrated planning; comprehensive development and ensuring a broad range of housing opportunities are provided for through the District Plan. Page 11 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

162 Page 162 of 286 The Councils focus for the DPR in terms of Greenfield development will be particularly around streamlining provisions, resolving inconsistencies, as well as reviewing the effectiveness and efficiency of some policies and rules RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ISSUE 2 - Maintaining and achieving good residential character and amenity Maintaining and achieving good residential character and amenity is recognised in a number of higher order documents. It is an important contributor to achieving a good quality of life for individuals, but is also important for the wider District, as quality urban environments attract and retain residents and help set apart one District from another. The Christchurch City Plan already contains a number of existing provisions regarding character and amenity. Broadly, the direction of the current City Plan seeks to provide good quality building and site design to achieve a high level of amenity throughout the living areas of the City. Policies reinforcing this approach are directed to matters such as street scene, open space, and access to sunlight and daylight. The Plan uses bulk, location and activity rules as triggers to control and assess residential development where the permitted standards for these provisions are exceeded. The Banks Peninsula District Plan also contains provisions concerning residential amenity. These focus primarily on size, form and location in a similar manner to the Christchurch City Plan. The issue is where to strike the balance between achieving good urban design and ensuring land development and redevelopment is not unnecessarily constrained. The policies and package of rules need to ensure there is adequate development potential of land and sites, but that any redevelopment and development is of a standard that can achieve a good level of residential amenity for the local neighbourhood. As a general principle, as density increases there is greater need for quality design to offset the bulk of buildings and consequential loss of open space and garden planting The City Plan has evolved to create a level of complexity which sometimes makes it difficult to achieve quality urban design. Rules, which if breached, trigger a wide array of different assessment matters which have contributed to development proposals of formulaic designs (i.e. to fit the rules) to avoid costly assessments or notification procedures. The Council has spent considerable time and resources on assessments which in some cases detracted from taking a more positive, proactive approach to support landowners in delivering forms of development the city needed RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ISSUE 3: Managing the effects of residential activities on strategic infrastructure The key issue concerns the potential conflict that can exist between some land use activities and the efficient functioning of key strategic infrastructure assets in the district. The issue can be seen in terms of reverse sensitivity effects, particularly where the presence of sensitive land use activities establish close to the infrastructure asset and become adversely affected by the assets operations. This can result in pressure to restrict the assets operations, potentially to the detriment of the assets short and longer-term viability, growth and development. Particular strategic infrastructure that is potentially affected includes the Christchurch International Airport, the Port of Lyttelton and the strategic road and rail networks. Management of this issue is crucial to the recovery of Christchurch and to the long-term economic development of the wider region RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ISSUE 4: Inadequate Protection Of Significant Page 12 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

163 Page 163 of 286 Natural, Cultural And Historic Heritage Through Subdivision The district contains many significant natural, cultural and historic heritage places. Subdivision can have either temporary or permanent effects on these places, including the positive effects of their protection. Many of these places require recognition or protection through s 6 or 7 of the RMA. Current provisions do not adequately manage these adverse effects to achieve the level of protection required by the RMA, and address the requirements contained in other more recent statutory documents 3.5. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ISSUE 5: Inadequate Provision For Good Design And Amenity Through Subdivision The places in which people live, work and play exist on a platform created through the subdivision process. The design of these areas is critical in ensuring these places are pleasant and practical. The existing objectives and policies only address design and amenity in a peripheral way. These are important issues because the design and layout of the subdivided land needs to promote sustainable patterns of land use as well as enabling land use to occur in a manner which responds to the context of the site and provides a platform for a quality built environment. The report prepared by Context Urban Design (attached) highlights the need to enhance these provisions RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ISSUE 6: Outdated Planning For Servicing And Road Network Infrastructure Through Subdivision The planning of servicing and road network infrastructure for subdivisions impacts on the quality of environmental outcomes for communities and efficient functioning of areas of the city, and has flow on environmental, social and economic effects for the wider district. Some servicing and road network infrastructure-related subdivision provisions in the current plans no longer align with current Council management of infrastructure, particularly as a result of the amalgamation of the Christchurch City and Banks Peninsula territorial authorities. Specific examples of changes in Council management include the preparation of the Development Contributions Policy, stormwater management practices, and shifts in transport policy. The significant increase in subdivisions during the rebuild and issues of future resilience of infrastructure following the Canterbury earthquakes make improved controls and guidance important. 4. UPDATED RESIDENTIAL NEW NEIGHBOURHOOD PROVISIONS - 5 JANUARY ADDRESSING THE ISSUES 4.1. Broadly the Residential New Neighbourhood objectives and policies seek to address the following key resource management issues: a following the principles of urban consolidation, accommodating residential household demand and providing housing choice for the recovery (from the earthquakes) and growth, by; i. increasing the opportunity for new housing development, including affordable homes, within the existing urban area and new greenfield areas; and ii. iii. providing a greater range of housing choice and diversity in terms of design and form; and increasing housing density in and around larger commercial centres; and Page 13 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

164 Page 164 of 286 b c iv. requiring mixed density housing in greenfield residential areas; managing non-residential activities within residential areas; and managing the effects of residential activities on strategic infrastructure The policies will be implemented through: a b c d Zoning of rural land to Residential New Neighbourhood Zone to provide for different densities and types of housing development appropriate to the particular area. The areas proposed to be rezoned include: iv. Stage 1 - New neighbourhood zones have been created at North Halswell, adjacent to Sparks Road and Masham adjacent to the southern side of Buchanans Road. Under Stage 1 some existing completed or nearly completed Living G areas were rezoned Residential Suburban or Residential Medium Density as reflects their consented or built density. These areas were the southern and eastern portions of the former Living G Masham Zone and a large portion of the former Living G Halswell West Zone. v. Stage 2 - All areas currently zoned Living G under the Operative Plan have been rezoned Residential New Neighbourhood. The Living G Zones under the Operative City Plan and the provisions that relate to them have been reviewed and some operative rules, including the Outline Development Plans, have been carried through in the Residential New neighbourhood Zone. Where Living G areas have been fully developed (or close to), the need for subdivision and development to be in general accordance with an Outline Development Plan (ODP) has been removed, as such provisions are no longer necessary or appropriate. vi. Stage 2 - All of the remaining Greenfield Priority Areas under the CRPS that were not already zoned for residential purposes under the Operative City Plan. This include those greenfield blocks known as South-East Belfast, South Halswell, South-East Halswell, South-West Halswell, Hendersons and the remaining part of the Upper Styx Outline Development Plan area Permitted activities providing for appropriate land use activities within residential zones (such as guest accommodation, older persons housing, care of non-resident children, home occupations, places of assembly and preschool, health care, veterinary and education facilities) and specific controls on some activities to manage the actual and potential adverse effects of these activities on neighbouring properties. A package of Built Form Standards to ensure that residential development is suitable to the context and character of the neighbourhood, contributes to the safety and amenity of the street, and achieves a good level of amenity and safety for the occupants. A package of subdivision and land-use activity and built form standards, including Outline Development Plans, that provide for an range of densities; facilitates the efficient and effective use of greenfield land; promotes good integration between land-use and infrastructure; maintains environmental conditions and values; and installs flexibility within the land development process. 5. EVALUATION OF OBJECTIVES 5.1 Scale and significance Page 14 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

165 Page 165 of 286 Regard has been had to the following matters in determining the extent of analysis supporting Objective 6 and its subsequent provisions: a. The provision of new neighbourhoods is of regional and city wide significance and affects other policy areas particularly the timing and provision of social and physical infrastructure. The need for minimum densities has been determined by higher order documents, including the LURP. b. The focus of analysis is on local effects and the need for integrated management. The changes on the residential environment will result in a significant change to the character and amenity of local communities in the medium and long term. The changes will in the main relate to the mix of residential unit types available, whereas existing suburban development tends to be detached or standalone three to four bedroom houses. On street and open space amenity features such as planting and furniture will be of a higher quality. Pedestrian, cycle and traffic flows within surrounding existing areas will also change as the new residential areas develop. the effects of these changes will be managed through the implementation of this and related objectives and the level of analysis reflects this; and c. The provisions will positively affect those with urgent housing needs but potentially will negatively impact on some existing neighbourhoods due to increased (downstream) traffic and demand for community facilities such as recreation space. The analysis has taken into account these conflicting outcomes. 5.2 General direction The planning and design of new suburban growth areas in Christchurch has evolved over the past decade through the adoption of a holistic and comprehensive approach to their planning, and the application of sustainable development principles through urban design. These features have been introduced sequentially into the operative plan through a series of, Environment Court resolutions of references to the proposed City Plan as publicly notified in 1995, and Council initiated and privately requested plan changes. These changes have introduced a general Living G Zone and have been accompanied by an ODP, itself comprising a series of layers designed to achieve a range of integrated outcomes including housing choice, more use of active transport, and an integrated approach to managing of natural resources management. However a myriad of bespoke objectives and policies for each Living G Zone has been introduced further complicating the District Plan. The use of private plan changes has created a considerable number of different Living G Zones. The proposed Residential chapter seeks to bring these zones together into a New Neighbourhoods Zone in a way that avoids duplication and creates better consistency in their administration. Whilst the Living G Zones were a significant advancement in integrated planning of new greenfield areas, and have produced better outcomes in greenfield development, analysis has shown that they do not sufficiently provide for the good urban design and integrated development as required by chapter 6 of the CRPS. The Council had previously signalled the concern in regard to complication of the City Plan when it developed and publicly notified Plan Change 61 which sought to introduce and overarching set of objectives and policies for greenfield growth areas. This plan change had regard to the former Proposed Change 1 to Canterbury CRPS (which was superseded by the LURP Appendix 1 changes to the CRPS). This review of the District Plan has superseded PC61 and it has not progressed. General themes of comprehensive, integrated and coordinated development through all of these processes (proposed Change 1, LURP Appendix 1, PC 61 and this phase 1 review) remain. Accordingly the provisions of PC 61 have been revisited and alternative subdivision and land use consenting routes have been developed. Page 15 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

166 Page 166 of Evaluation Updated Objectives The following objectives are drawn from the Council's RNN Revised Proposal 5 January 2015 and are which the following evaluation are based upon. 8.1 Objectives and Policies Subdivision and Development Clarifications: (a) the objectives and policies contained in other chapters, including zone chapters, the Transport chapter, the Natural Hazards chapter and the Hazardous Substances and Contaminated Land chapter, are relevant in addition to those below. (b) In the Residential New Neighbourhood Zone: (i) The objectives and policies referred to in clause (a) apply: (ii) Objectives and (and all associated policies) in this chapter do not apply. (iii) Objective (and all associated policies) apply to subdivision. (iv) Objective (and all associated policies) apply to subdivision and to land use and development activities (in the latter cases due to the effect of Objective and Policy in Chapter 14) Objective - Infrastructure and Transport This objective and the following associated policies apply [but are not reproduced here] Policy A (Identification of infrastructure constraints) Policy (Availability of infrastructure) Policy (Transport and access) Policy (Water supply) Policy (Stormwater disposal) Policy (Sewage disposal) Policy (Trade wastes) Policy (Electricity) Policy (Telecommunications) Policy (Construction and design of infrastructure) Policy (Adverse effects on infrastructure) Objective Subdivision, use and development in the Residential New Neighbourhood Zone Page 16 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

167 a. Co-ordinated, sustainable and efficient subdivision, use and development is enabled in the Residential New Neighbourhood Zone. CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 167 of Summary of Evaluation The New Neighbourhood Zone is predicated on integrated resource management which embodies and reconciles the key parts of s5, with the outcomes delivered through a separate ODP process. The transport, open space, stormwater, heritage, ecological and tangata whenua features of the ODPs recognise and provide for all of the matters listed under s6, and have particular regard to the matters listed in s7 as appropriate. As the proposed provisions give effect to the relevant provisions in Chapter 6 CRPS, particularly Policy 6.3.3, it is understood that they must meet the purpose of the RMA. It is considered appropriate that the objective for the RNNZ clearly states the outcome intended. The intended outcome sought as a result of subdivision and development processes is the same and that is for enabling planning provisions and processes to lead to coordinated, sustainable and efficient subdivision, use and development. This is appropriate for the RNNZ as this is where the large majority of Christchurch s future urban development is occurring and will occur in the future. In Chapter 8, subdivision, it is considered to be most appropriate for Objective (Infrastructure and Transport) as assessed in the Subdivision chapter section 32 report - to apply in the RNNZ too, given the importance of adequate and efficient infrastructure provision for new subdivision development in the RNNZ. Consideration was given to whether to make Objective and of the Subdivision chapter apply in the RNNZ but given that the subject matter of those objectives and the policies that implement them are covered by the proposed Objective 8.14 it is considered to be better for plan users that and do not apply in the RNNZ. This is to avoid duplication and proliferation of policies. In Chapter 14, Residential, it is considered that the intended outcome for land use activity and development in the RNNZ is the same as that sought for subdivision, and that efficient plan drafting would be best served by including a linking objective that refers to Objective in Chapter 8. In Chapter 14, Residential, it is considered to be appropriate for Objectives to as assessed in the Stage 1 Residential section 32 report - to apply in the RNNZ too. Objective is appropriate in order to give effect to the sustainable management of the City s natural and physical resources within the RNNZ areas (section 5 RMA), having particular regard to the need for the efficient use and development of these resources (section 7(b), RMA). Objective is also appropriate in order to give effect to the following objectives in the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement, and their associated policies: Objective (Recovery Framework); Objective (Urban Form and Settlement Pattern); Objective (Sustainability); Objective (Integration of transport infrastructure and land use); The statement of a single main objective that applies to subdivision, use and development in the RNNZ is an effective approach as it provides clarity and the basis for having a common set of policies. Following expert conferencing and mediation, there emerged Page 17 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

168 general agreement that this format would be effective, clear and appropriate. CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 168 of 286 The statement of a single main objective that applies to subdivision, use and development in the RNNZ is considered to efficient as it enables significant rationalisation of the subsequent policies that apply, which will result in more efficient preparation and processing of consent applications, with the potential for cost savings as result. 6. EVALUATION OF RNN PROPOSED POLICIES, RULES AND METHODS Section 32 (1)(b) requires an evaluation of whether the provisions are the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives by identifying other reasonable practicable options, assessing the efficiency and effectiveness of the provisions in achieving the objectives, and summarising the reasons for deciding on the provisions. The assessment must identify and assess the benefits and costs of environmental, economic, social and cultural effects that are anticipated from the implementation of the provisions, including opportunities for economic growth and employment. The assessment must if practicable quantify the benefits and costs and assess the risk of acting or not acting if there is uncertain or insufficient information available about the subject matter. The policy and legislative framework, at the national, regional and local level, reinforces the importance of achieving greater residential densities, housing choice and the desire to create integrated, well-functioning, walkable neighbourhoods, with more sustainable patterns of use, and addressing community needs more holistically, including recognition of sense of place and identity. The higher order policy direction for RNN comes predominantly from CRPS Policy Development form and urban design (refer to Appendix 2) which states that development, residential development and the establishment of public space is to give effect to the principles of good urban design, and those of the NZ Urban Design Protocol In respect to the policy framework for RNN this is now proposed to be contained in prdp Chapter 8 Subdivision, Development and Earthworks, given that subdivision is principally the first stage in the land development process. The District Plan rules, and associated matters of assessment are the regulatory method for implementation of policies. In conjunction with this other methods may include, for example, non-regulatory design guides, design advice, incentives, community plans and neighbourhood improvement plans. DPR options include whether regulatory intervention is an appropriate method for implementation and whether the same level, less or more regulation than the operative set will better implement the policies when considered together with their costs and benefits. The following tables provide a more detailed assessment of the policies and rules proposed in the Council's RNN Revised Proposal 5 January 2015, in comparison to other regulatory and nonregulatory approaches. Page 18 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

169 Page 169 of 286 Option 1 - RNN Revised Proposal 7 December 2015 (Flexible controls to manage land development and subdivision, including use of controlled activity status to encourage well integrated and comprehensive residential developments) Appropriateness (Policy approach mainly) Policies Policies applying in the RNNZ have been significantly rationalised and this is considered appropriate in the interests of efficient plan drafting and ease of use for users. Effectiveness (i.e. as an approach, method to achieve the Act/Obs and pols) Each policy is considered below in terms of their effectiveness as a means of achieving the main objective Efficiency (costs and benefits) Each policy is considered below in terms of their efficiency in terms of costs and benefits as a means of achieving the main objective Policy (Outline Development Plans) By virtue of the "linking policy" in Chapter 14, this policy will apply to subdivision, use and development in the RNNZ. This policy is appropriate as it gives effect to Policy of the CRPS by requiring the preparation of ODPs for RNNZ areas (clause (a)) and then requiring subdivision, use and development in the RNNZ to be consistent with the ODP (clause (b)). Clause (b) facilitates consideration of interim uses of RNNZ land prior to its ultimate development for residential purposes. This is appropriate as it may be several years before some RNNZ land is developed. This policy will be effective as the ODP s have been prepared already for all current RNNZ s and the policy has been drafted to ensure that ODP s have to be prepared for any new RNNZ s that may be zoned in future. Clarification has been provided that the ODP s comprise both the plans and the narratives. The wording of this policy is considered to be effective as it enables the ODP s to contain description of the outcomes sought and for context to be provided, while ensuring that development requirements are specified, as compliance with these is Page 19 of 108 Notified 2 May 2015 The benefits of this policy will be seen in the coordinated development of ODP areas in an efficient way. Efficient servicing will be able to be achieved in a manner that is difficult to achieve by separate landowners acting independently and without coordination. Furthermore, better integration of communities will be achieved. A significant benefit is that infrastructure can be planned, designed and budgeted in an integrated manner, including in Council s Long Term Plan and Capital Works Programme, enabling Council to provide lead coordination and sometimes catalyst role for _1.docx

170 Appropriateness (Policy approach mainly) Effectiveness (i.e. as an approach, method to achieve the Act/Obs and pols) necessary to meet the corresponding performance standard. There may well be a range of possible interim activities for RNNZ land prior to its final form of urban development and this policy enables an application to be assessed on its merits as a discretionary activity. Efficiency (costs and benefits) CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 170 of 286 development of an ODP area. The costs of this policy are primarily borne by Council when it is preparing the ODP s or by private applicants in the event that they prepare the ODP for any area. It is considered that the mainly intangible benefits significantly outweigh the costs involved. Policy (Comprehensive residential development) By virtue of the "linking policy" in Chapter 14, this policy will apply to subdivision, use and development in the RNNZ. While the RNNZ provisions provide for a range of consenting pathways for subdivision and development, it is appropriate to provide policy support for comprehensive residential developments within the RNNZ as this form of development will be an increasingly important means of achieving the required densities in each ODP area. Comprehensive residential developments are multiple unit developments which are designed, consented and constructed in an integrated manner. The policy applies to comprehensive residential developments that either have only a land use component This policy will be effective as it will provide policy support for when resource consent applications ae being considered. The benefits of this policy are expected to be seen in the form of increasing numbers of well designed, integrated land and building projects that contribute to achieving the required density when averaged across each ODP area. It will also contribute to the provision of a wide range of housing typologies in each ODP, as a complement to more traditional, and less dense, stand-alone dwelling typologies. This policy gives rise to no particular costs as it is an enabling policy and does not seek to restrict other forms of development. Page 20 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

171 Appropriateness (Policy approach mainly) or, where there is a subdivision component, the subdivision consent is sought concurrently with the land use consent or at a later date. The key feature is that the built environment is designed first in an integrated manner, rather than having to retrospectively design houses for small lots already created. Refer also to Appendix 1 to the background assessment of the comprehensive development process. Policy (Development density) This policy is appropriate as it gives effect to Policy of the CRPS with its requirement for 15 households per hectare when averaged across the residential development areas of an ODP. The policy has been worded to provide for density staging and density transfer to occur. It is appropriate that landowners/developers are provided with a policy framework and consenting pathway whereby they can seek lower densities in part of an ODP area in the early stages of its development by nominating other areas within the ODP to take higher density in due course in order to offset the previous lower densities. This can only happen with the approval of the landowners concerned so as not to disadvantage them. Importantly, this policy ensures that an average of 15 households per hectare is Effectiveness (i.e. as an approach, method to achieve the Act/Obs and pols) The provisions provide for a fair, flexible and effective approach as the density staging / density transfer provisions are enabling not mandatory. Any landowner or developer can choose either to simply meet the requirements in clause (a) - 15 households per hectare - or can seek to utilise the flexibility provided in clause (b) and (c) if that is their preference. Clause (a)(ii) is both practical and effective. It would be unreasonable and costly to expect landowners in areas identified on ODP s as having specific development constraints to have to negotiate with other owners to seek density offsetting (ie higher density) elsewhere in the ODP. Instead, this policy enables practical subdivision design that reflects the circumstances of Efficiency (costs and benefits) CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 171 of 286 The benefits of this policy are that it provides a policy framework for a wide range of subdivision and development scenarios. It enables the subdivision of balance lots and for these to be identified as future development lots. It provides for both subdivision only and comprehensive development pathways and for an appropriate mix of these forms so as to achieve the required overall average density. There will be legal and negotiation costs for parties seeking to avail themselves of the flexibility that is provided by this policy. These have not been quantified as they will vary on a case by case basis depending Page 21 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

172 Appropriateness (Policy approach mainly) achieved in the residential areas of each ODP overall, as required by the CRPS. Clause (a)(ii) is a practical and appropriate response to the issue that some areas are shown on the ODPs as having particular development constraints that will make it impractical to achieve 15 households per hectare. The requirement for the RDP to give effect to the RPS is one that requires a judgement to be made having regard to the overall package of RNNZ provisions. This practical response to a real issue does not detract from the fact that the overall RNNZ package of provisions has been designed to give effect to the CRPS and to the requirements in Chapter 6 of the CRPS specifically. As such, the flexibility inherent in this policy is appropriate. Policy (Neighbourhood quality and design) This policy combines elements of Policies to (that will not now apply in the RNNZ by virtue of the directions in section 8.1 of the Revised Proposal) and concisely restates the key elements required to achieve quality neighbourhoods, as they apply to subdivision, use and development. Effectiveness (i.e. as an approach, method to achieve the Act/Obs and pols) specific constrained land in some ODP s, This policy will be effective to implement objective as it will provide the basis for assessing resource consent applications for subdivision and development in RNNZ. Page 22 of 108 Notified 2 May 2015 Efficiency (costs and benefits) on the circumstances. However, the policy does not force these costs upon any party, rather it provides an option for those seeking the density staging or density transfer flexibility. The benefits of this policy will be significant but largely intangible ones. Good urban design, functional and amenity outcomes are difficult to quantify. Applicants face design costs and construction costs with all subdivision and development proposals. There can be cost implications associated with elements of well-designed proposals but it is considered that the costs to the wider community of poorly designed and/or monotonous developments are more significant _1.docx CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 172 of 286

173 Appropriateness (Policy approach mainly) Effectiveness (i.e. as an approach, method to achieve the Act/Obs and pols) Efficiency (costs and benefits) CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 173 of 286 (if intangible and hard to quantify). Policy (Public open space) This policy combines elements of Policy (Open Space) - that will not now apply in the RNNZ by virtue of the directions in section and also elements of Policy (Parks and open space networks) in the notified Stage 1 Chapter 14 Residential proposal. It is appropriate as it is a more concise policy statement than the notified policies while incorporating all the key elements. Policy (Infrastructure servicing for developments) By virtue of the "linking policy" in Chapter 14, this policy will apply to development in the RNNZ. Subdivision in the RNNZ will be subject to Objective (Infrastructure and Transport) and the more comprehensive suite of specific servicing policies associated with that objective. This policy will be effective to implement objective as it will provide the basis for assessing resource consent applications for subdivision and development in RNNZ. This concise policy will be effective in achieving Objective and practical servicing outcomes, as it provides a policy basis for the imposition of appropriate consent conditions when resource consent applications are being considered. Page 23 of 108 Notified 2 May 2015 This is an efficient policy as it is better planning and cheaper to plan for public open space and reserves at the design stage than to retrospectively purchase land for reserves (at ratepayers expense) after subdivision and development has occurred. The development community understands that the costs associated with the vesting of reserves at subdivision stage occurs within the context of the Local Government Act 2002 and the Council s Development Contribution Policy and that land provision is offset against development contributions. This is a fair and equitable system and one where open space outcomes can be practically achieved, which can otherwise by challenging when multiple landowners are involved. The benefits of infrastructure provision are considered to be well understood, as are the environmental and functional costs when adequate infrastructure is not provided to serve developments. The costs of infrastructure provision lie with the developer and the greater benefits (although often _1.docx

174 Appropriateness (Policy approach mainly) However, developments without a subdivision component also need to be effectively and efficiently serviced with infrastructure. Policy (Integration and connectivity) This policy is effectively an amalgam of Policy (Integration and connectivity) - that will not now apply in the RNNZ by virtue of the directions in section and Policy (Separation of incompatible activities) in the notified Stage 1 Chapter 14 Residential proposal. Policy (Local centres) This policy is appropriate to give effect to policies in Chapter 6 of the CRPS and achieve mixed use and fully functioning communities, in a manner that provides local convenience and minimises transport use. Effectiveness (i.e. as an approach, method to achieve the Act/Obs and pols) This policy will be effective to implement objective as it will provide the basis for assessing resource consent applications for subdivision and development in RNNZ. It will provide the policy basis for the influencing design and the imposition of appropriate conditions to address common planning interface and integration issues. This policy will be effective to implement objective as it will provide the basis for assessing resource consent applications for subdivision and development in RNNZ. It is an enabling policy, not a restrictive or directive one. Efficiency (costs and benefits) CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 174 of 286 unquantified and intangible) are received by both the developer and the wider community. This policy will be efficient and a proposal will be assessed on its merits having regards to the benefits and costs that apply in each site-specific case. This policy gives rise to no particular costs as it is an enabling policy and does not seek to restrict other forms of development. Policy (Nga Kaupapa / protection and enhancement of sites, values and other taonga of significance to tangata whenua) This policy is identical to Policy in the notified Stage 1 Chapter 14 Residential proposal. The notified Stage 1 Chapter 8 proposal contains Policy (Design and amenity / Tohungatanga) which is not now proposed to apply to the RNNZ by virtue of the directions in section 8.1 but the important content of that policy is covered in this Policy This policy is appropriate as one way in which the principles of the Treaty of This policy will be effective as it will provide the basis for assessing resource consent applications for subdivision and development in RNNZ. Page 24 of 108 Notified 2 May 2015 The benefits of this policy are difficult to quantify but are nevertheless important for tangata whenua in terms of protection of taonga of cultural significance. The costs of this policy include the value of any land that is set aside to protect sites of cultural significance. Each application will be assessed on its merits enabling benefits and costs to be explored for each sitespecific circumstance _1.docx

175 Appropriateness (Policy approach mainly) Waitangi can be taken into account, as required by section 8 of the RMA. Effectiveness (i.e. as an approach, method to achieve the Act/Obs and pols) Efficiency (costs and benefits) CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 175 of 286 Subdivision activity status rules The controlled and restricted discretionary activity rules in Chapter 8 that apply to subdivision in RNNZs have been separated out from those that apply to subdivision elsewhere. This has enabled significant rationalisation of the standards, matters of control and matters of discretion that apply to RNNZs without affecting other zones. This is consistent with Objective (Clarity of Language and Efficiency) in Chapter 3, the Strategic Directions and Strategic Outcomes chapter of the RDP. It is considered appropriate that most subdivision applications be either controlled or restricted discretionary activity status (in both cases non-notified and with no written approvals). Two of the controlled activity standards in A are also listed as restricted discretionary activity standards (namely the "Consistency with ODP" and "Residential Net Density" standards). This ensures that non-compliance with these standards triggers full discretionary activity status. The focus of Option 1 is on achieving controlled activity status for large scale subdivision (4ha or more) and comprehensive These rules will be effective in achieving the above RNNZ objective and policies for the following reasons. Standards have been set in A(3) that enable a controlled activity pathway where a subdivision application covers a large area of 4 hectares or more, or alternatively, where it relates to a large comprehensive development of 6,000m2 or more. Controlled activities have to be granted (except where special circumstances exist) but given the purpose of the RNNZ zoning, and the applicable standards (see below), this is an appropriate and effective activity status for large subdivision and development sites that are of a scale whereby good urban design outcomes can be achieved and can be satisfactorily controlled by way of consent conditions. It is considered appropriate that smaller subdivisions and comprehensive developments - which are more common - are subject to a non-notified restricted discretionary activity process which enables some Council discretion over their integration with surrounding developments, so as to achieve better urban design and practical servicing Page 25 of 108 Notified 2 May 2015 The notified proposal was for all subdivision to be a restricted discretionary activity. The benefits of providing a controlled activity path The 4 hectare standard for subdivision application areas and the 6,000m 2 standard for comprehensive residential development sites is simply an activity status threshold to differentiate between controlled and restricted discretionary activities. It is considered that this rule/standard combination will be efficient as both controlled and restricted discretionary activities will be processed on a non-notified, no written approvals basis. The alternative to these controlled activity standards would be a default position whereby all subdivisions and comprehensive developments are either controlled activities (subject to meeting other standards) or are restricted discretionary activities (i.e. the notified proposal) _1.docx

176 Appropriateness (Policy approach mainly) development (parallel land use and subdivision consent) of sites 6000m2 or more developed within the context of an ODP. This is an appropriate mechanism and approach in that it provides greater certainty to large scale developers as to the development status, while providing the opportunity to ensure that developments achieve the structuring elements, densities, integration and quality necessary to deliver the objectives and policies of the CRPS and prdp through the use of matters of control, and the opportunity for discussion between the developer and the Council. Further, larger scale sites provide greater flexibility to address interface effects with adjacent landholdings and land use. Where subdivisions are smaller and require a greater degree of consideration to effectively knit developments together to enable efficient servicing and integration with neighbouring subdivisions, particularly where they have not been proposed as part of a master plan process, the developments have a nonnotified restricted discretionary activity status. While giving less certainty to the developer, the activity status ensures that efficient infrastructure provision and layouts in particular can be achieved, without compromising future development opportunity and increased long term cost to the community. Effectiveness (i.e. as an approach, method to achieve the Act/Obs and pols) outcomes. Larger sites and those considered in much greater detail in regard to the development outcomes earlier in the development process, have been evaluated as of considerably less risk than those undertaken in a more piecemeal manner at varying times, and where there is less design flexibility due to site size. The benefit of the controlled activity status for larger scale and comprehensive development is the certainty of development potential the status provides to the developer as well as the minimisation of the time taken for the consent process (non-notification in particular) and the potential associated holding costs, and the actual costs of the consent process itself. The key benefit of the non-notified restricted discretionary activity status is the ability to negotiate development outcomes that provide for efficient and integrated subdivision and land use development. If poorly designed new developments have longer term implications for the community individually and collectively in terms of amenity, ongoing cost, efficiency, Efficiency (costs and benefits) CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 176 of 286 It is not appropriate for all subdivisions, regardless of effect or merit, to have to be approved (which controlled activity status would confer). There can be challenges associated with achieving integration of multiple small subdivisions in a manner that meets the outcomes sought by the ODPs. Restricted discretionary status for all subdivisions (as notified) is the next most appropriate option. This is regarded as less efficient (and less certain in terms of outcomes) for larger subdivisions and comprehensive residential developments that meet all other standards and which can more readily be controlled by conditions to achieve good urban design and practical servicing outcomes. Page 26 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

177 Appropriateness (Policy approach mainly) Effectiveness (i.e. as an approach, method to achieve the Act/Obs and pols) sustainability and economic benefits. Efficiency (costs and benefits) CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 177 of 286 Subdivision performance standards The standards proposed to apply in the RNNZ now represent a significantly rationalised set of standards compared to notified proposals. By "carving out" the RNNZ subdivision standards into new section A there is now a series of concisely worded standards that are considered to be effective and efficient, where benefits will outweigh the costs of compliance. The consistency with ODP standard is appropriate as a means to implement Policy The residential net density standards are appropriate as a means to implement Policy Further, they are appropriate as they give effect to the CRPS by requiring an average 15 households per hectare over the residential development areas of the ODP. Flexibility has also been provided for density staging (balance lots and future development lots) and also for density transfer mechanisms to be considered within ODP areas. Appropriate density flexibility has also been provided for areas subject to particular Non notification ensures that third party issues do not impact upon the ability to undertake the consent process efficiently. The consistency with ODP standard works together with the ODPs at the end of Chapter 8. The wording of the standard is sufficiently clear to enable compliance (or not) to be readily determined by comparing an application to the development requirements specified in the narrative and plans that together form the ODP. A degree of flexibility is necessary in terms of implementation of an ODP through individual consent applications. This standard will be effective as, in conjunction with the ODPs, it provides an appropriate balance between flexibility and interpretation clarity. The residential net density standards will be effective in achieving Policy and the requirements of the CRPS. Clause (a) is the main clause that achieves this, notwithstanding some flexibility provided in clause (b), (c) and (d) to reflect existing situations and development-constrained land. Clause (e) is an effective means for providing flexibility for an applicant to Page 27 of 108 Notified 2 May 2015 The benefit of the consistency with ODP standard is that subdivisions do achieve the ODP outcomes and do not unreasonably frustrate the development of other land in the ODP area. The costs are typical subdivision development costs that are understood and generally accepted. This will be an efficient standard to apply and to comply with. The residential net density standards are considered to be efficient in that the default requirement of 15 households per hectare is clear and this provides the most straightforward avenue for an applicant to meet the standard (and thus give effect to the CRPS). Clauses (b), (c) and (d) provide an efficient way of achieving flexibility to reflect existing situations without unnecessary resource consents. Clauses (e) and (f) are enabling standards that provide flexibility for _1.docx

178 Appropriateness (Policy approach mainly) development constraints. The evaluation of the land area for subdivision standards has been provided above in relation to the activity status rules and is not repeated here. The remaining standards in section A are considered to be appropriate ones to ensure good subdivision design outcomes and lots of a shape and size that facilitates the subsequent development. Effectiveness (i.e. as an approach, method to achieve the Act/Obs and pols) seek lower density and to offset this by nominating land elsewhere in the ODP area to take the correspondingly higher density, so as to comply overall with the minimum density requirement. Clause (e)(i) provides flexibility for the land nominated to take the future higher density to be either owned by the applicant (such as where a future development lot is identified) or owned by a third party who has provided written approval for the proposal. Clause (e)(ii) requires that there be a legal instrument proposed that is enforceable by Council to ensure that the higher density proposed for the nominated land (to offset the lower density sought initially by the applicant) will actually occur. This clause does not specify the legal instrument to be used, thereby providing some flexibility for applicants to explore alternatives, but the standard will only be effective if it is enforceable by Council. This is more achievable where the nominated land forms part of a subdivision application, enabling instruments like consent notices to be considered. Where an applicant seeks to rely on land that is not part of its subdivision Efficiency (costs and benefits) CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 178 of 286 those that seek it, while not being imposed on any applicant who does not seek it. For this reason, the benefits for an applicant are considered to exceed the costs and the applicant can make his/her own evaluation of that and choose their approach accordingly. The remaining standards in section A are considered to be efficient ones where the benefits of compliance (in terms of good, practical subdivision design) exceed the practical costs of compliance. IN instances where an applicant wish non-compliance to be assessed on its merits in any given case, then the costs of the restricted discretionary activity process will not be significantly more than a complying subdivision which is either controlled or restricted discretionary activity anyway. Page 28 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

179 Appropriateness (Policy approach mainly) Effectiveness (i.e. as an approach, method to achieve the Act/Obs and pols) application to satisfy the meeting of this standard, The density transfer flexibility provided by clauses (e) and (f) will be effective provided that Council has the ability to decline an application if it is not satisfied that any proposed legal instrument will be both effective and enforceable, even where land is on-sold. Efficiency (costs and benefits) CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 179 of 286 Subdivision matters of control and matters for discretion The matters of control for subdivision in the RNNZ have been considerably rationalised and simplified which is appropriate in the interests of plan users. Three of the matters of control in are specified to apply in the RNNZ just as they apply city-wide. While now a simple list of matters (11 matters in the RNNZ compared with some 28 "general" matters that apply elsewhere), the matters provide sufficient and appropriate control for Council to exercise as it processes controlled activity subdivisions and imposes appropriate conditions. Similarly, the matters of discretion for subdivision in the RNNZ have been The remaining standards in section A are effective as they will be assessed through subdivision consent applications. The matters of control are well defined and will be effective for the assessment of subdivision applications. The 11 matters of control will enable Council to impose appropriate conditions. The matters of discretion will be effective. In addition to clauses (a) to (t), Council has reserved discretion over the matters of control specified in A and the effects of any non-compliance with performance standards. This ensures a robust approach to the assessment of restricted discretionary activity subdivisions yet one that can be focused on specific issues as appropriate. Page 29 of 108 Notified 2 May 2015 The rationalised and simplified matters of control and matters of discretion will be efficient for consent applicants and Council processing staff alike _1.docx

180 Appropriateness (Policy approach mainly) significantly rationalised and simplified and this is expected to make it a simpler and more efficient process for both applicants and consent processing staff. There are now some 20 assessment criteria specified under 5 subheadings as compared to some 10 pages of assessment criteria in Council s 30 June post subdivision conferencing version. ODPs ODPs have been reformatted to ensure consistent formats and clear delineation of the development requirements as distinct from contextual guidance Effectiveness (i.e. as an approach, method to achieve the Act/Obs and pols) The updated ODP's will give better effect to the South West Christchurch and Belfast Area Plans, now reflecting more detail as the outcomes sought under these plans. The narrative together with the plan illustrations will provide greater certainty of the design outcomes sought and which must be achieved, and where there is more flexibility to achieve the desired outcomes. Efficiency (costs and benefits) CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 180 of 286 The updated ODP are clear on which elements are to be achieved to be deemed consistent with the ODP. This will ensure the processing of resource consents are more efficient and unnecessary resource consents are not required. Residential activity status rules In Chapter 14, Residential, section 14.6 contains the rules for the RNNZ. The appropriateness of the proposed rules has been assessed as being the most appropriate provisions to give effect to Objective The use of the ODP in conjunction with the scale and comprehensive nature of development in the activity status is seen as an effective mechanism to recognise the increased ability of larger and more comprehensive developments to achieve the objectives and policies in contrast to smaller scale development. Permitted activities are subject not only to activity specific standards in but also to built form standards in Together, these provisions will be effective in achieving the RNNZ objective in (via the linking objective ) Page 30 of 108 Notified 2 May 2015 The risk of making so many activities permitted activities in the RNNZ relates to adverse effects on residential coherence and amenity of neighbourhoods and for adjacent owners and occupiers in particular _1.docx

181 Appropriateness (Policy approach mainly) that is Land use and developments in the Residential New Neighbourhood Zone are consistent with the objective contained in of the Plan. This RNNZ objective in is Coordinated, sustainable and efficient subdivision, use and development is enabled in the Residential New Neighbourhood Zone. The rules have also been assessed as being the most appropriate to give effect to Objectives to and to in Chapter 14, which are objectives that apply to all Residential Zones, including the RNNZ. The RNNZ rules package is considered to be enabling for residential activities and for other activities that are consistent with residential neighbourhoods and complementary to residential activities. There is a long list of permitted activities which for the most part were introduced in the Stage 1 Residential proposal and have been subject to hearing and conferencing and evaluation in the Stage 1 Residential section 32 report. The activity specific standards have been further refined in places with a view to deleting unnecessary standards. Subject to meeting the specified standards, the permitted activities include: Residential activities Effectiveness (i.e. as an approach, method to achieve the Act/Obs and pols) of Coordinated, sustainable and efficient subdivision, use and development is enabled in the Residential New Neighbourhood Zone. The permitted, controlled and restricted discretionary rules are enabling overall while the application of the standards ensures coordinated, sustainable and efficient land use and development outcomes. An activity status threshold of 6,000m 2 has been specified for comprehensive residential developments as a controlled activity. It is easier to achieve good urban design outcomes and infrastructure connectivity between adjacent landholdings where a development is of a larger scale (with inherently more options available within the site). Conversely, it is frequently challenging to achieve infrastructure connectivity and good urban design outcomes with smaller comprehensive developments. For these, restricted discretionary activity status is considered appropriate, noting that both activity pathways will be non-notified and with no written approvals required so process efficiency outcomes will be similar. The relative lack of non-complying Page 31 of 108 Notified 2 May 2015 Efficiency (costs and benefits) This risk has been balanced against the risk of not making the rules more restrictive, requiring many more activities to be subject to resource consent applications (with associated costs). The risks to residential amenity and coherence have addressed by specifying activity standards that have to be met. The benefits of this approach (more permitted activities but subject to standards) are considered to outweigh the costs. The intangible costs to neighbourhood amenity are controlled through activity standards. There remains a consent pathway (restricted discretionary activity) for activities which do not comply with any activity standard. With regard to the activity status threshold of 6,000m 2 for comprehensive residential developments as a controlled activity, it is noted that comprehensive developments on smaller sites will also be facilitated in an efficient manner through rule RD7 on a non-notified, non written approval basis _1.docx CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 181 of 286

182 Appropriateness (Policy approach mainly) Child care activities within residential units House relocations Home occupations Pre-school facilities Health care facilities Veterinary activities Education activities Temporary military or emergency training facilities Emergency services facilities Market gardens and community gardens Storage of heavy vehicles (one only) Repair/storage of personal vehicles and boats Places of assembly (specified roads only and other standards apply) Community corrections facilities Community welfare facilities Spiritual facilities Commercial local centres (where provided for on ODP) Rural activities Show homes Regard has been had to the RDP s Objective (Clarity of language and efficiency) in Chapter 3, Strategic Directions, in particular the objectives of minimising: transaction costs and reliance on resource consent processes (Objective 3.3.2(a)(i)); Effectiveness (i.e. as an approach, method to achieve the Act/Obs and pols) activities (and no prohibited activites) places some reliance on the effectiveness of restricted discretionary and discretionary activity rules. It is considered that the objectives and policies of the RNNZ and the Residential Zone are strong and clear and enable restricted discretionary and discretionary activity proposals to be considered on their merits and declined if that is assessed as the appropriate outcome following consent application and hearing processes. They are effective rules. Efficiency (costs and benefits) CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 182 of 286 The restricted discretionary activity pathway is reasonable and efficient for smaller comprehensive developments, This avoids the needs to have a suite of more prescriptive standards that would otherwise be needed if comprehensive developments on smaller sites were to also be controlled activities. Page 32 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

183 Appropriateness (Policy approach mainly) the number, extent and prescriptiveness of development controls and design standards to encourage innovation and choice (Objective 3.3.2(a)(ii)); and requirements for notification and written approval (Objective 3.3.2(a)(iii)); A new category of controlled activity is introduced which was not present in the notified Residential proposal. Rule C1 provides for retirement villages as a controlled activity, as compared to discretionary activity in the notified Stage 1 proposal. It is considered appropriate that retirement villages in the RNNZ are treated in a similar manner to other large comprehensive developments. The controlled activity rule is an enabling one, without notification or written approvals, but it enables discussions on layout, infrastructure and conditions in manner that ensures implementation of an ODP will be assisted and not compromised. Effectiveness (i.e. as an approach, method to achieve the Act/Obs and pols) Efficiency (costs and benefits) CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 183 of 286 Rule C2 provides for comprehensive residential developments as a controlled activity where the net site area is 6,000m2 or more. This seeks to incentivise comprehensive residential developments by making them subject to significantly fewer standards than otherwise apply to housing which follows the more traditional two stage process of Page 33 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

184 Appropriateness (Policy approach mainly) subdivision then house building. Only the building height standard, the site coverage standard and the daylight recession plane standard from development site boundaries apply as standards. There are appropriate matters of control in section 14.8A so that all the standards that do not apply may still be regarded as flexible guidelines when Council is exercising its control in respect of controlled activity applications. Accordingly, this rule is considered to be enabling and flexible. The restricted discretionary activity rules provide a consent pathway for activities which do not comply with any activity standard. Some discretionary activities are specified where non-compliance with the specified standards could create adverse effects on the RNNZ neighbourhoods requiring broader assessment. Rule D5 is one of these. It states that activities that do not comply with the Consistency with Outline Development Plan standard are a discretionary activity. This is appropriate given that the ODP sets the key development requirements and structural elements for development of the wider neighbourhood. It is considered that the objectives and policies of the RNNZ and the Residential Zone are strong and clear and enable proposals to Effectiveness (i.e. as an approach, method to achieve the Act/Obs and pols) Efficiency (costs and benefits) CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 184 of 286 Page 34 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

185 Appropriateness (Policy approach mainly) be considered on their merits and declined if that is assessed as the appropriate outcome following consent application and hearing processes. For this reason, minimal use has been made of non-complying activity rules (mainly to reflect the NES Electricity Transmission requirements) and there are no prohibited activities specified. This is considered to be appropriate given the robustness of evaluations available for discretionary activities. Overall the rules are considered the most appropriate to achieve the RDP s objectives for the RNNZ. Effectiveness (i.e. as an approach, method to achieve the Act/Obs and pols) Efficiency (costs and benefits) CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 185 of 286 Residential performance standards The residential performance standards in Option 1, in regard to both Chapter 8 and Chapter 14, have been significantly refined from those in Option 2. They are accompanied by, again refined, matters of assessment and control that give certainty as to the development outcomes anticipated, as well as being supported by solutions provided in the non-statutory RNN Design Guide. The performance standards of Chapter 8 ensure the fundamental structuring elements of a subdivision proposal, are managed appropriately including in respect to the block and street layout, the size, orientation and location of lots, vehicle, cycle and pedestrian Option 1 provides an appropriate balance between ensuring there are sufficient standards to achieve a minimum baseline quality and consequently achieving the objectives and policies of the prdp, and the certainty and flexibility required by developers to meet their aspirations and minimise costs of both the process and compliance. The combination of standards and use of matters of control and assessment in conjunction with the RNN Design Guide gives sufficient direction to both the Council and the developer. In addition there is a reduced level of Page 35 of 108 Notified 2 May 2015 There is a cost to the individual of regulation, but Option 1 is considered to minimise this cost where the quality of outcome will still be achieved. The alternative to the minimal regulation proposed in Option 1 is the potential cost to the community, particularly the longer term cost, of poor quality and dysfunctional development _1.docx

186 Page 186 of 286 Appropriateness (Policy approach mainly) Effectiveness (i.e. as an approach, method to achieve the Act/Obs and pols) movement and public space. complexity and increased level of consistency in the standards across the plan as a result of Option 1. Efficiency (costs and benefits) Overall the package of performance standards proposed is highly efficient in respect to minimising the complexity of the process, while offering alternative development routes that can give greater flexibility to development outcomes, and providing a base level of amenity that meets the objectives and policies of the prdp. Without some performance standards there is no guarantee that a development pattern will ensue that will enable the anticipated quality of development to progress, particularly given the split between subdivision and land use. The performance standards in Option1 have been refined from that as notified but remain packaged as an interlinked bundle of standards that provide a baseline of design quality, including the overall area layout, internal and external amenity and safety, and to minimise potential adverse effects. Minimum site size, in conjunction with lot width is appropriate to provide a lot Page 36 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

187 Appropriateness (Policy approach mainly) Effectiveness (i.e. as an approach, method to achieve the Act/Obs and pols) of a sufficient site size to enable a standalone house to be constructed as a permitted activity. Allowance is also made to enable multi unit housing options as a permitted activity, while managing the common land use effects of higher density development such as the dominance of car parking, overshadowing and poor interfaces with public space. Maximum cul de sac length, minimum road frontage to reserves, minimum reserve widths and maximum walkable block sizes are all appropriate measures to ensure the quality and safety, including the functionality, of public space. Furthermore, for larger scale and comprehensive developments, the standards in Chapter 14, including internal setbacks, recession planes and site coverage have been removed or further reduced. This provides greater flexibility appropriate to the scale of activity and ability to manage potential adverse effects on site, and the potential level of risk associated with this. In respect to Chapter 14, land use performance standards have been applied that are consistent across the Efficiency (costs and benefits) CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 187 of 286 Page 37 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

188 Appropriateness (Policy approach mainly) Effectiveness (i.e. as an approach, method to achieve the Act/Obs and pols) residential zones where they are applicable including open space standards, unit size, recessions plans and height (as appropriate to the density, scale of the site and location), site coverage, building setbacks and servicing. Where the performance standards differ from those in other residential zones, is where it is acknowledged that as a new urban growth area best practice should be sought for example in regard to the provision of landscaping, fencing and the location of garages. It has been demonstrated that in residential areas of Christchurch where such aspects are illustrated, these areas are highly sought after. Efficiency (costs and benefits) CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 188 of 286 Residential (RNNZ) matters of control and matters for discretion The matters of control for land use and development in the RNNZ is a short but The relaxation of, or reduction in the number of applicable standards, including recession planes, site coverage and height, for larger scale and comprehensive development is seen as effective to both encourage development of this type and to recognise the greater flexibility that site size affords in the design process, while still managing interface effects. The matters of control are well defined and will be effective for the assessment of land use consent applications. The matters of control will be effective in Page 38 of 108 Notified 2 May 2015 The matters of control and matters of discretion will be efficient for consent applicants and Council processing staff in that they provide _1.docx

189 Appropriateness (Policy approach mainly) appropriate and effective list of matters. The matters of control are clearly worded and are more focused than the broader assessment criteria that apply to restricted and full discretionary activities. While comprehensive residential developments and retirement villages are subject to considerably fewer standards (by way of Rules C1 and C2) and therefore less prescription and greater flexibility than applies to other developments in the RNNZ, this flexibility is given on the basis that the other standards may still be used as guidelines to be applied flexibly when Council is exercising control over the specified matters. This is an appropriate way of achieving the benefits of good design without unnecessary costs or prescription. The matters of discretion for land use and development in the RNNZ are effectively the same list as those that apply in other residential zones. Two additional criteria are proposed, one to relate to the outcomes sought by ODPs ( ) and the other to provide assessment criteria specifically for comprehensive residential developments ( ). RNN Design Guide The RNN Design Guide provides non statutory advice on development alternatives, Effectiveness (i.e. as an approach, method to achieve the Act/Obs and pols) enabling Council to impose appropriate conditions. The matters of discretion will be effective. Criterion will be effective in enabling the Council as consent authority to consider the appropriateness of any proposal that is not consistent with the relevant ODP, having regard to adverse effects and the outcomes sought by the ODP. With respect to the criteria in , there are seven criteria which will be effective as they are clear and appropriately focused on matters of relevance to comprehensive residential developments. Design guides are considered to be most effective when supported by effective regulation. Their effectiveness falls on Efficiency (costs and benefits) CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 189 of 286 guidance on the matters to be assessed for controlled and restricted discretionary activities. There is no major cost associated with the use of design guides, provided they are interpreted Page 39 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

190 Appropriateness (Policy approach mainly) particularly in regard to developments falling into the restricted discretionary status i.e. the smaller, discrete developments. The nonstatutory status of the RNN Design Guide allows for updates as principles and practice evolve and improve, without the need of an onerous plan change process. Effectiveness (i.e. as an approach, method to achieve the Act/Obs and pols) how well they are developed (to be clear and informative) advocated and adopted by the Council and land developers. Design guides can be very effective in illustrating to a developer and the Council in processing resource consents, option on "how" rules and in particular assessment matters or elements on an ODP might be achieved. Efficiency (costs and benefits) incorrectly as rules. CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 190 of 286 The non-statutory RNN Design Guide supports the anticipated outcomes i.e. the objectives and policies without additional cost in respect to the consent process itself, while also providing solutions to create more cost effective and efficient longer term development outcomes. Option 2 - RNN Notified version Stage 1 and 2 (Variable controls to manage land development and subdivision including area specific and broad range of urban design rules) Stage 1 and Stage 2 RNN activity status placed more focus on restricted discretionary activity status with a substantive number of associated assessment matters and complexity in the comprehensive development provisions. In addition the RNN Design Guide, as a matter of control with the potential inherent lack of specificity and broad set of matters contained in the Guide, creates uncertainty for the developer as to whether the matters would be met. Option 2 gives less recognition to the difference between the benefits in undertaking larger scale and comprehensive developments, and the smaller more fragmented development blocks. Rather all developments, regardless of risks or benefits are managed and processed in the same way. Option 2 has more extensive standards and more repetition of these between Chapter 8 The key difference between Option 1 and Option 2 in respect to activity status is the extent to which the restricted activity status applies. Option 2 has more focus on restricted discretionary status that Option 1. This method is less effective in promoting and providing incentives to achieve high quality development in respect to the larger scale and more comprehensive developments. The method does not provide certainty for the developer as to the outcome of the consent process, particularly when notification may be involved. However the restricted discretionary status does potentially provide a more rigorous design process including in respect to infrastructure and servicing Page 40 of 108 Notified 2 May 2015 In respect to smaller development proposals, option 1 and 2 offer little difference in costs or benefits. The combination of the standards and the complexity in the process and the repetition between Chapter 8 and Chapter 14 including the assessment matters, creates a greater level of uncertainty for the developer, in combination with the restricted discretionary activity status. Option 2 provides for more certainty in respect to the outcomes sought from development and as such, meeting the objectives and policies of the prdp in relation to integration, amenity, and cultural matters for example. However this _1.docx

191 Page 191 of 286 Appropriateness (Policy approach mainly) and Chapter 14 than Option 1, including more extensive information requirements, standards associated with the complexity of alternative development routes and required a fixed standard for a mix of housing typologies. Effectiveness (i.e. as an approach, method to achieve the Act/Obs and pols) provision and area layout. The more extensive standards provide a greater level of certainty as to the intended layout and built form outcome. Efficiency (costs and benefits) is at the expense of clarity and ease of process for developers. There is potential for increased cost as a result of the complexity of the approvals process in combination with the extent of performance standards, and as well as increased consenting requirements. Option 3 - Minimal standards and greater reliance on non-statutory methods to manage landuse and subdivision design outcomes. Option 3 places greater focus on permitted activity standards. Given the complexity in the delivery of new urban development it is considered that this method will not be effective in achieving highly integrated, wellfunctioning new neighbourhoods without checks in place provided by the activity status, activity standards and associated matters of assessment. The option potentially allows for developers to develop in isolation of neighbouring properties, creating inefficiencies in infrastructure provision and servicing, as well as potential adverse effects, particularly at the interfaces with neighbouring sites and activities, including reverse sensitivity effects. Option 3 has minimal standards with a greater reliance on developers to be self-regulating in achieving the objectives and policies of the plan. Given the complexity in the delivery of new urban development it is considered that this method will not be effective in achieving highly integrated, well-functioning new Minimal regulation will not provide sufficient certainty to the community the objectives and policies will be achieved. If rules are not in place there is a risk that inadequate investment into creating the street scene will be made, which over time will not produce the quality of residential environments expected. Reliance on guidelines would not be appropriate because private developers often are only persuaded to change proposals to be consistent with guidelines if there are specific rules in the District Plan that provide the council with the ability to impose conditions. Statutory concerns tend to be treated more seriously than nonstatutory ones. Non-regulatory methods such as education (i.e. through design guidelines and publications) and incentives can in some circumstances be as effective in achieving good site and building design as regulatory control. Awareness of guidelines rises more While there is benefit to developers in the immediacy of the process and minimal consenting time and cost, the longer term costs are potentially much greater, particularly to the community in respect to the efficiency and sustainability of the environments that may result, and consequently not meeting the objectives and policies of the prdp. Option 3 delivers potential short terms benefits in terms of a reduction in upfront cost to developers but has significantly greater risk to the community in respect to longer terms costs of inefficient and poor quality development, thus not meeting the objectives and policies of the prdp. Page 41 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

192 Page 192 of 286 Option 4 - Rezone a mix of Residential Suburban Zone and Residential Medium Density Zone Appropriateness (Policy approach mainly) neighbourhoods without checks in place provided by the activity status, activity standards and associated matters of assessment. The option potentially allows for developers to develop to their own standards which may be significantly different in quality to those of neighbouring development and in respect to the longevity and efficiency of outcomes, with the potential for far greater adverse internal and external effects. The principal alternative to comprehensive development is to zone an area a suburban residential (equivalent to the Living 1 Zone) However this does not provide for or ensure that the matters set out in Chapter 6 of the CRPS, in particular relating to ODP s and integrated management will be achieved. Suburban residential/living 1 zoning tends towards uniformity of allotment sizes and residential type units, and ultimately a reduced range of housing options as sought under higher order documents. It may however be appropriate to zone smaller peripheral greenfield residential extensions approximately 20ha and below as a mix of Residential suburban and Residential Medium Density. This is provided they comply with an outline development plan and deliver 15 houses a hectare. Effectiveness (i.e. as an approach, method to achieve the Act/Obs and pols) however when there is an associated statutory requirement for their consideration. This option is not considered effective in achieving the objectives and policies of the prdp, particularly in regard to achieving residential density and providing variety and flexibility in housing type. Efficiency (costs and benefits) This zoning approach is less flexible in responding to changing development cycles and household needs and it could be foreseen that multiple consents would be required to these changing needs increasing cost and creating greater inefficiencies in the development process. Option 4 effectively provides for more extensive permitted activities by creating more fixed development outcomes than those Page 42 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

193 Appropriateness (Policy approach mainly) anticipated in Option 1. However the option provides less flexibility to achieve the densities and typologies required to meet the CRPS, and consequently creates potential knock on effects in regard to activity status i.e. non-compliance with minimum density resulting in a restricted discretionary or noncomplying activity status. Effectiveness (i.e. as an approach, method to achieve the Act/Obs and pols) Efficiency (costs and benefits) CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 193 of 286 Page 43 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

194 Page 194 of ZONING AND RULES ASSOCIATED WITH THE OPERATIVE LIVING G ZONE 7.1. Background and Identification of options There are a number of large mixed density residential greenfield growth areas provided for in the Operative District Plan as Living Greenfield Zones. These zones are the Living G (Yaldhurst) Zone, Living G (East Belfast) Zone, Living G (Awatea) Zone, Living G (Wigram) Zone, Living G (Prestons) Zone, Living G (North West Belfast) Zone, Living G (Highfield) Zone and Living G (Highsted) Zone. The operative Plan rules provide for comprehensive design and development of large greenfield areas, based on a predetermined ODP. Each growth area has a bespoke, City Plan package of ODP, objectives, policies and rules designed to take into account site specific physical features and developer aspirations for built form and residential yield. Whilst each package of rules follows a general form there is a significant diversity of style and structure between packages. This has created an undue level of complexity in the City Plan that needs to be reduced particularly in relation to objectives and policies. The Living G zones have evolved from a number of Environment Court references (appeals) against the provision for residential greenfield growth and the interpretation of the greenfield growth objectives and policies and subsequent private and Council initiated plan changes pursuant to the first schedule of the Resource Management Act. Each new Environment Court settlement or decision, or each plan change added a further change to suit the needs of the particular growth area. Many rules within the existing packages are negotiated rules between the Council, proponents of plan changes, submitters on plan changes, and parties to Environment Court decisions. Under Stage 1 of the DPR a new Residential New Neighbourhood Zone has been proposed with associated new rules to manage development. The options to address the future management of the Living G Zone include retaining the current approach under the operative City Plan (or a version of this) or applying the new Comprehensive New Neighbourhood Zone and associated rules Policy and Rule Evaluation The evaluation as to whether the proposed policies in the Stage 1 notified Chapter 14 are the most appropriate way to meet the objectives is set out at pages of the Stage 1 Residential Chapter Section 32. The following evaluation therefore only addresses the zoning and rules package. Provision(s) most appropriate Option 1: Integrate relevant Living G rules into the Residential New Neighbourhood Zone and rezone all Living G zoned areas as Residential New Neighbourhood Zone under the Replacement District Plan Effectiveness and Efficiency a. Effectiveness Consistent feedback from Large Block developers (of land located within the Living G Zone) has been that the existing Living G provisions (subject to some consolidation) should be retained, especially for ODP areas that were partially developed. A copy of the report on this consultation is attached as Appendix 18 to this report. However to retain the very complex, prescriptive and extensive provisions that are currently contained within the Living G Zones, will not result in a more streamlined Replacement District Plan. Appendix 32 of this report contains an assessment of the current approach to greenfield subdivision and issues arising. In short this report supports less prescriptiveness in the rules and outline development plans, but does endorse a more comprehensive approach to considering land-use Page 44 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

195 and subdivision applications particularly for higher density areas. CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 195 of 286 A further assessment has been undertaken of the Living G Zone standards and the Residential New Neighbourhood provisions proposed under Stage 1 of the DPR - refer to Appendix 2 and 3. This report concludes that as a package the Residential New Neighbourhood provisions are more flexible and provide comparable development rights. The RNN provisions would generally accommodate the subdivision layouts, distribution of densities and housing typologies provided for under the Living G Zones provisions with some minor amendments. Some more permissive development rights have been secured in some of the Living G Zones, particularly Wigram and Prestons. These should be carried forward where development is already well advanced. In other cases advantage can be taken of more lenient RNN standards to compensate for those which are more restrictive. Furthermore, given that much of the located land within the Living G Zone Outline Development Plan areas has already been consented and land development has or is soon to occur, retaining the Living G zone rules is no longer necessary to facilitate the development. For those areas of land within each ODP area that has not been consented (subdivision and/or land use consent), it is considered that in principle the proposed RNN rules, will deliver and uphold the desired outcomes as sought under the Living G Zone rules and Outline Development Plans. In relation to those rules that need to be carried over from the operative Living G zone and subdivisions sections, Council officers have made their best attempt at this stage (given the short timeframe and inability to consult with Large Block Developers) to include the most appropriate site specific standards. Changes, deletions and additional rules may still be required. These may be able to be resolved through a Council submission, mediation and/or evidence at the hearings. There still remains the option to rezone the former Living G zone areas as either Residential Suburban Zone, Residential Suburban Density Transition Zone or Residential Medium Density Zone. However unlike that part of the Halswell West area that was rezoned RSZ and RMDZ, most of the other areas are not as advanced through the subdivision and land-use consenting process, nor has this been requested by the land developer. However, should a Large Block developer (in most cases being the landowner) request through the submission process this occur, the Council will support a further rezoning. This approach will meet the Statement of Expectations and Strategic Directions Objective Clarity of language and efficiency by: Eliminating the plethora of existing Living G objectives and policies in favour of the simplified and consolidated New Neighbourhood objectives and policies publicly notified in the Phase 1 Chapter 14 of the prdp. Where possible i. removing redundant rules; ii. adressing some issues about existing rules raised in consultation Page 45 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

196 Page 196 of 286 (e.g. prohibition of construction of dwellings at Yaldhurst until such time as a through road has been constructed). Options less or not as appropriate to achieve the Objectives and policies Option (2) Maintaining the current Living G package in the City Plan in their entirety. b.efficiency The rules package will be highly efficient in delivering the balance of the Living G greenfield residential growth areas. The Residential New Neighbourhood rules are the same or very similar to that under the Operative City Plan, and have been used by relevant Council officers, developers and land owners for a number of years, thus are generally well understood. Reduantant and unclear rules have been removed. Some rules have not been carried through where the matter is able to be addressed through the subdivision and/or general rules, for example noise standards for residential activities adjent to motorways. a. Appropriateness The material set out in Appendix 2 and Appendix 3 discusses and highlights some of the drawbacks or problems that have been identified with the existing Living G zone development an consenting process. Maintaining these rules and processes in their exact same format will perpetuate the issues. Consideration has been given to creating a similar but refined version of the Living G Zone and a draft zone was prepared. However this approach did little to achieve a more streamlined plan and reduce the complexity of rules and zones. Page 46 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

197 Page 197 of Rezoning of Greenfield Priority Areas under the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement, Chapter Background The Council, through the district plan, is tasked with staging the release of this land to meet demands for residential Greenfield land over time. Some Greenfield Priority Areas Residential have been identified as appropriate short-medium term development areas and have either been zoned Residential or are being rezoned for residential use in the Residential chapter, making provision for residential growth within the Christchurch city urban area over the next years. There are a number of remaining Greenfield Priority Areas that have not yet been rezoned either through the operative City Plan's Living G Zone or proposed through Stage 1 of the District Plan Review. These remaining areas are predominantly located in Halswell but also includes an area in the Upper Styx catchment and south-east part of Belfast. In considering the potential rezoning of the remaining greenfield areas, the Council has had regard to the considerable research and commissioned technical advice and assistance from various internal and external experts. This work together with internal workshops and community feedback, has been used to inform the proposed approach. While many of the key research documents listed below were prepared prior to the Canterbury earthquakes, these documents have been reviewed to ensure they are still relevant following the earthquake events and continue to provide the overall direction for urban development growth within the City. New geotechnical information has been obtained to assist with assessing whether the subject areas are suitable for rezoning for future urban development. In addition to the above reports and advice, the Council has also compiled, reviewed and developed a collection of material on urban development issues (refer to Bibliography). This information has been used to inform the District Plan Review and this Section 32 report. a b Table 1: Key technical reports Title Author Description of Report Geotechnical Desk Study Report CCC Halswell ODP 2013 Land Contamination Desk Study Review Report CCC Halswell ODP 2013 Beca Ltd Beca Ltd These technical reports are desktop studies reviewing existing information about land contamination and liquefaction potential of the land. c Interpretative Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation CCC Halswell ODP 2014 Beca Ltd This technical report builds on the desktop study and uses ground testing to determine the geotechnical nature of the land for rezoning purposes. d e Geotechnical Preliminary Site Evaluation R6 East Belfast, Christchurch 2013 Preliminary Site Investigation R6 East Belfast, Christchurch 2013 Coffey Geotechnics (NZ) Ltd Coffey Geotechnics (NZ) Ltd These technical reports are desktop studies reviewing existing information about land contamination and liquefaction potential of the land. Page 47 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

198 Page 198 of 286 f Geotechnical Assessment Report: Review of the District Plan for R6 Belfast, Christchurch 2014 Coffey Geotechnics (NZ) Ltd This technical report builds on the desktop study and uses ground testing to determine the geotechnical nature of the land for rezoning purposes. g Urban Development Strategy 2007 Environmen t Canterbury, et al. Provides the strategy to manage growth and development in the Greater Christchurch area, including the location of future housing, development of social and retail activity centres, areas for new employment and integration with transport networks. h South-West Christchurch Area Plan (SWAP) 2009 and its associated technical reports CCC The objectives in SWAP are of particular relevance to new Greenfield development, both for residential and business development. SWAP provides direction for comprehensive and integrated development of some 8000ha of land in the south-west of Christchurch. SWAP contains goals, objectives and policies, including detailed plans for new growth areas, to support the development of residential land to accommodate some 12,000 new households and over 300 hectares of new business land. i Belfast Area Plan (BAP) 2010 and its associated technical reports CCC The objectives in BAP are of particular relevance to new Greenfield development, both for residential and business development. BAP provides direction for the comprehensive and integrated development of some 1350 hectares of land in northern Christchurch. BAP contains goals, objectives and policies, including detailed plans for new growth areas, to support the development of residential land to accommodate some 2,500 new households and 98 hectares of new business land. j New Subdivision Resident s Survey 2006 CCC The survey was undertaken to provide information about households living in new greenfield subdivisions. Most of the greenfield subdivisions surveyed are on rural land rezoned for residential purposes since This research provides information such as satisfaction of residents with the location of new subdivisions relative to facilities and services, and reasons for choosing to live in new subdivisions rather than in existing Page 48 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

199 Page 199 of 286 K Section 35 Report 2011 Response Planning l m Plan Change 61 General Objective and Policy Framework for Greenfield Residential Growth (2010) Residential land availability in Christchurch City (July 2014) CCC CCC residential areas. Report on the efficiency and effectiveness of the provisions of both the operative Christchurch City Plan and Banks Peninsula District Plan. A summary of decisions requested in submissions and further submissions for PC 61 identified several issues. Those issues relevant to the Future Urban Development Area Chapter relate to retail, reverse sensitivity, rural use and amenity, adverse environmental effects associated with construction, deferred development until area can be services by the Council s infrastructure and services, and the role of area plans. The submissions helped inform this chapter. This report is one in a series of quarterly reports providing the Council with an updated overview of the availability of land for housing, particularly in greenfield priority areas identified in the Land Use Recovery Plan, to meet demand in the Christchurch City area Identification of options The higher order objectives and documents clearly direct that the subject is to be developed for residential purposes. The options to facilitate its development centre predominantly on when should the land be rezoned and what is the most appropriate zoning. SPECIFIC PROVISIONS (POLICY, RULE, METHOD) MOST APPROPRIATE WAY TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVES Provision(s) most appropriate Option 2: Rezone all remaining Greenfield Priority Areas to provide for their residential development in a staged manner. 1. Rezone all of the following remaining Greenfield Priority Areas to Residential New Neighbourhood Zone. This include those greenfield blocks known as South-East Belfast, South Halswell, South-East Halswell, South-West Halswell and Hendersons Effectiveness and Efficiency Effectiveness: Following the earthquakes the Council is under considerable financial pressure to repair and upgrade existing infrastructure and to provide new infrastructure to service newly established Residential zones and areas where rezoning was underway prior to the District Plan Review. Analysis being undertaken at that time by the Council indicated there should be sufficient land zoned or being zoned for residential use without the immediate addition of the remaining greenfield areas. However, the City Council's vacant land register currently has 1990 hectares shown as vacant zoned residential land. This is Page 49 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

200 Page 200 of Include Outline Development Plans as Appendices under the Residential Chapter 14 for each of the remaining Greenfield Priority Areas, including those areas known as South- East Belfast, South Halswell, South-East Halswell, South-West Halswell and Hendersons. made up of land in the greenfields priority areas, greenfield land rezoned in the Operative City Plan but not yet developed out (e.g. Masham) and ad hoc pieces of land that are currently vacant in residential areas. It also includes areas on the Port Hills and Banks Peninsula. The vacant land register does not include all Greenfield Priority Areas, but if it did include all areas would increase the vacant land on the 'flat' to 1500ha. Vacant land on the 'flat' is most likely to be developed and contribute to achieving the required household targets. The average rate of take up of vacant residential land over the past 10 years has been a take up rate of between 60-80ha per annum. So assuming an average take up rate of 70ha/annum there is approximately 21 years supply of vacant land on the flat, notably this is with the remaining Greenfield Priority Areas made available for residential development. A 20yr supply of vacant residential land may be considered sufficient at this stage and certainly is enough to meet the Strategic Directions household targets. However it does support the need to rezone all Greenfield Priority Areas to ensure there is adequate opportunity in the market for land to be developed. Over the last 10 years the Council has supported and at times itself facilitated the rezoning of Greenfield land when landowners and developers have promoted it. For a range of reasons, this has not always led to the land being developed in the original timeframes promoted. The Council has very little control in the market and financial conditions that dictate actual housing supply and where within the rezoned areas it is actually delivered. Council s past approach has also been to focus on rezoning greenfield land when: Landowners (generally Large Block developers) have advanced the rezoning proposal and indicated they are committed to developing the land; Adequate technical assessments have been undertaken to support the rezoning and meet section 32 requirements; There is certainty that the land is able to be serviced by public infrastructure in the short to medium term (generally within a 20yr timeframe). There is an identified and quantified need to meet Greenfield targets under the RPS. It has in the past often been the decision of Council to rezone land that can only be delivered and serviced within a 20-30yr period. The rezoning of land for residential purposes that is unlikely to be delivered and serviced in the very long term has not been the Council s approach. In most cases this is because there is insufficient technical assessments and no public Page 50 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

201 Page 201 of 286 infrastructure available to support the rezoning, or as this would lead to an inefficient use of existing and future planned and funded infrastructure. However it is not the actual act of rezoning land that has the potential to result in the inefficient use, maintenance and delivery of public infrastructure. Infrastructure programmes under the Council s Long Term Plan and the decisions that determine these, address and manage that particular issue. Good alignment between the Long Term Plan and District Plan, has long been a driving goal for Council. To this end the act of rezoning particular areas of land and the timeframes in LTP Capital Works Programmes have been aligned and regularly realigned. For this reason Council officers consider that rezoning all longer term Greenfield Priority Areas to be an appropriate approach, provided: 1. An adequate level of technical assessments are available but of greatest importance include: a. Geotechnical assessment indicating that the land is suitable for residential development. b. Transport assessment to identify what transport improvements are required to accommodate the additional traffic demands; and c. Water supply and wastewater assessments to identify what infrastructure improvements are required to service the land. Assessment: It is considered that an adequate level of technical assessments have been undertaken for all of the remaining Greenfield Priority Areas - refer to the background information above. 2. An Outline Development Plan is prepared which includes: a. the most critical key structuring elements to achieve the comprehensive development objective and supporting polices; and b. together with any relevant Area Plan or structure plan, meets the policy criteria under the RPS Chapter 6, Policy 6.3.3). Assessment: The ODP for all areas have been updated and are now considered to meet the requirements under Policy in CRPS for ODPs with the exception of business and community facilities. However for both the Halswell and Belfast areas, there are already major expansions proposed and provided for within the existing Key Activity Centres. Page 51 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

202 Page 202 of 286 Furthermore, through future subdivision and land-use consents, a local centre (all that may be required based under retail assessments) can be established within these blocks. 3. The land is still able to be used for a range of rural purposes until such time as it is to be subdivided. Assessment: This is not likely to be an issue as all current farming practises (and those similar in effects) will have existing use rights. Notwithstanding this a rule (permitted activity) is proposed to provide for rural activities until such time as the land is developed. 4. The land does not become further fragmented through subdivision at rural and rural-residential densities, thereby compromising the achievement of Objective - Comprehensive planning for new neighbourhoods and its associated policies. Assessment: The rezoning of the land to RNN may encourage and facilitate rural land holdings, 4ha and larger, to subdivide into small land holdings. This may become attractive to some rural landowners in the interim until the full ODP area is able to serviced, developed and sort for development in the market (i.e. sufficient housing demand). However the Council will have sufficient control and ability to decline such a subdivision consent or place conditions on the consent either if it is processed as a controlled or restricted discretionary activity. Options less or not as appropriate to achieve the Objectives and policies: Option 3: Create a Future Urban Development zone with Concept Plans and supporting rules. nder this option the land would essentially be held in a transition zone with: i. Concept plans to guide future development ii. Subdivision would be restricted to minimum area of 4 hectares as a Discretionary Activity and requires provision of an Outline For the reasons and assessments above, it is considered that the most efficient and effective approach to the remaining Greenfield Priority Areas, is to rezone them now a suitable residential zone. The Residential New Neighbourhood Zone is considered to be the most appropriate zone, as it reflects the most modern approach to greenfield development. Appropriateness Rezoning the Greenfield Priority Areas Residential at South Halswell and East Belfast to a Future Urban Development Zone would recognise these areas are in transition from rural to urban use. This zoning could indicate these areas are intended for future urban development and act as a staging mechanism by signalling a clear preference for development of residential zoned land, thereby exercising greater control over un-coordinated and unplanned development. Applications to rezone or subdivide and develop land can be assessed against policies that anticipate future residential Page 52 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

203 Page 203 of 286 Development Plan and that the application provide for a comprehensive subdivision and land use development. Option 1: Status quo retain existing City and District Plan provisions Rely on Rural 2 zoning, Rural 3 zoning and and/or Special Purpose (South Halswell) zoning zoning, which in turn can ensure proposed development is coordinated and integrated with existing and planned development and infrastructure. This option has the benefit of signalling that the subject land is in transition from rural to urban use, but recognises that it is not (at this stage) required to meet the 2028 household targets. It will also i. give owners and occupiers certainty and the ability to plan for social and economic well-being together with some flexibility in the short to medium term prior to rezoning for residential growth; ii. maintains the rural, low density character compatible with a rural setting and productive uses on the land until such time the future urban potential of the land is realised through rezoning or resource consent approval. However there are costs with this approach. There will be a further rezoning of the land required to facilitate the land development. As all of the key technical assessments have been undertaken to support the rezoning, this is considered to be an unnecessary and inefficient approach. Whilst much of this land is not currently positioned for redevelopment, nor is it immediately required, situations do change. Therefore, all planning obstacles to it development should be removed where appropriate. This option will also limit opportunities for those landowners who have identified their preference for a residential zoning. In summary, the costs of this approach are considered to outweigh the benefits. Appropriateness The operative Rural or deferred Rural zoning of land at south Halswell and east Belfast does not reflect the recent identification of these areas as Greenfield Priority Areas Residential in the LURP and the CRPS and creates a high policy threshold against which development proposals are to be assessed. With increasing housing demand across Greater Christchurch and developer interest in these areas, applications to subdivide and/or rezone this land are anticipated before 2028, by which time these areas need to be rezoned to enable urban residential growth. Risk of Acting or Not Acting Given the statutory direction to provide for residential development of these Greenfield Priority Areas before 2028, the option of maintaining the operative provisions is not the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA. The risk of not acting is that the Council fails to reflect the statutory direction provided in the LURP and the CRPS to provide for urban residential zoned land before Given this statutory direction the risk of not Page 53 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

204 Page 204 of 286 acting outweighs the risk of acting. Page 54 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

205 Page 205 of SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION 1. At the outset of the District Plan Review project an engagement, communications and marketing programme was developed to: a. Increase the level of awareness and understanding of the role of the District Plan b. Invite stakeholders and the community to be involved in the review c. Listen to and consider their views in the drafting of and decision-making on the plan d. Build confidence in the review process, and the final new District Plan. 2. A campaign - Finding the Balance - was created to help engage the community by informing them and encouraging their involvement in the review. An online conversation was run through the Future Christchurch website, alongside information on the District Plan Review on the Council s site Designed to engender a continuous conversation with the community, the first stage ran in August / September To introduce the District Plan Review, an eight page booklet was delivered to 147,000 households across the city and Banks Peninsula, and made available in libraries, service centres and cafes. 4. At the end of August we held two general stakeholder presentations at Civic Offices which were attended by 120 people. Invitees included community representatives, government agencies and NGOs, developers, lawyers and planners. We also held community drop-in sessions in eight locations, including Akaroa. 5. Promotion of the campaign during this time included extensive advertising in the Press, Star and community papers, plus radio to let people know about the community sessions. 6. The Finding the Balance site had more than 4700 page views, and more than 500 comments on the District Plan Review were received. 7. A second round of consultation was held from 24 February to 30 March with the community and other stakeholder groups and organisations, as part of the preparation of the priority draft chapters. 8. The comprehensive, five week programme of community engagement built on the Finding the Balance branding introduced in the earlier round. 9. The Section 32 for the Strategic Directions chapter provides an overall summary of the consultation undertaken for the first phase of the DPR. In addition, s 1.4 of this report provides a summary of the feedback received specifically related to the draft Residential chapter provisions. Appendix 13 provides a more detailed summary of the feedback and recommended responses to the feedback, including recommendations to change the draft provisions. Channels and information 1. Information about options being considered in drafting the first set of chapters, and how people could participate in the development of the District Plan at this stage, was made available through the following channels: a. The Council website including chapter drafts and associated maps b. Letters to potentially affected property owners around commercial centres (14,860 plus 1101 following postponement for Riccarton due to flooding); around industrial areas (Hornby 57, Cookie Time Templeton 41 and Memorial Ave / Russley Road 153) and to applicants and agents of District Plan changes underway 212. Total letters: c. Info sheets on the District Plan Review in summary, for each of the eight draft chapters and Page 55 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

206 Page 206 of specific commercial or industrial locations d. Public and stakeholder meetings (see details following) including customised Powerpoint presentations e. Online surveys (see details following) f. A Natural Hazards forum (see details following) g. Print advertising in Press, Star and community papers, Akaroa Mail (outlining the District Plan Review and chapters, and promoting meetings and feedback) h. Online advertising in Facebook, TradeMe Property, Press online (directing to the surveys) i. Radio advertising on More FM and Radio Live placements on breakfast, drive and primetime (promoting meetings) j. Media release and briefings (see details following) k. Ongoing Facebook and Twitter updates l. District Plan Review e-newsletter, and stakeholder and community s ( four messages inviting to upcoming meetings) m. Posters at libraries and service centres (two sets, promoting meetings and feedback) 2. More than thirty presentations and public meetings were held across the city and Banks Peninsula to inform people about the chapters being developed, and for planners to hear their concerns and get local input. More than a thousand people attended these meetings. Areas of focus included: a. Ward-based community meetings covering all eight chapters of Stage 1 b. Residential properties around the commercial centres of Barrington, Church Corner, Papanui, Hornby, Linwood, Bishopdale, Shirley, Merivale and Riccarton, and the Sparks Road development in Halswell c. Properties around industrial areas of Hornby, Memorial Ave/ Russley Road, and Cookie Time Templeton. d. General stakeholder presentations to community groups, sector interests, government and non-government agencies 3. Three online surveys were also carried out: a. One for Affected Areas Survey (for property owners living in defined areas directly affected by changes - key commercial centre locations) b. One was a Public Survey (self-selected sample, open to the public living in any location) c. One focussing on the Natural Hazards chapter (self-selected sample; open to the public living in any location). 4. The first two were open from late February until 30 March The Natural Hazards one started in the third week of March and is still open. 5. A forum focussing on natural hazards was also held on Saturday 15 March. Titled Our Changing Environment the risks and challenges of living with natural hazards, the event was attended by over 150 people. Topics covered included hazards and risks, the science behind measuring risk and probabilities, land instability and flooding and how the District Plan Review might help address these issues. 6. Media activities included an interview by The Press on the topics of land instability in the Port Hills and Flooding, and with the Sunday Star Times on climate change and rules in the District Plan Review. A radio interview was held with Radio NZ on the topic of restricting commercial and retail in industrial zones, and a TV interview was done with CTV on the topic of parking. Lastly a combined media briefing was undertaken on natural hazards. Page 56 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

207 Page 207 of 286 Feedback 1. Engagement feedback has been recorded through comments and notes at the public meetings, and telephone, and via Survey Monkey. 2. To date, more then 900 comments had been received through the first two surveys (i.e. not including the Natural Hazards questions). A similar number have come through the meetings, and telephone. Stage 2 of the District Plan Review o No consultation has been undertaken on Stage 2 proposed provisions, except with the Council s statutory partners. BIBLIOGRAPHY Material, reports information, data used to develop the chapter and review provisions: Abley Transportation Consultants (2010) Belfast Upper Styx Area Plan Transportation Assessment. A report prepared for Christchurch City Council. Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner Ltd (2008) South West Area Plan: Social and Health Assessment. A report prepared for Christchurch City Council. Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner Ltd (2006) South West Christchurch Rural Resource Scoping Report. A report prepared for Christchurch City Council. Beca Ltd (2013) Geotechnical Desk Study Report CCC Halswell ODP. Beca Ltd (2013) Land Contamination Desk Study Review Report CCC Halswell ODP. Beca Ltd (2014) Interpretative Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation CCC Halswell ODP. Boffa Miskell (2007) Belfast Integrated Catchment Management Study: Aquatic Ecology. A report prepared for Christchurch City Council. Canterbury Regional Council (2013) The Canterbury Regional Policy Statement. Christchurch City Council (July 2014) Residential land availability in Christchurch City. Christchurch City Council (2011) Proposed Plan Change 61 General Objective and Policy Framework for Greenfield Residential Growth - Summary of Decisions Sought in Submissions and Further Submissions Christchurch City Council (2010) The Belfast Area Plan. Christchurch City Council (2009) South-West Christchurch Area Plan. Christchurch City Council (2009) Belfast Area Plan Phase 1 Report: An Assessment of Community Facilities. Christchurch City Council (2009) Belfast Area Plan Phase 1 Report: Business Activity. Christchurch City Council (2008) Belfast Area Plan Phase 1 Report: A Basis for Assessment. Christchurch City Council (2008) Belfast Area Plan Rural Resources Study. Christchurch City Council (2008) Belfast Area Plan Recreation, Open Space and Community Values. Christchurch City Council (2008) Belfast Area Plan Phase 1 Report: An Assessment of Natural Values. Christchurch City Council (2008) South-West Christchurch Area Plan: Phase 1 Report An Assessment of Natural Values. Christchurch City Council (2008) South-West Christchurch Area Plan: Phase 1 Report Page 57 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

208 Recreation and Open Space. Christchurch City Council (2008) South-West Christchurch Area Plan: Phase 1 Report Tangata Whenua Values. Christchurch City Council (2008) South-West Christchurch Area Plan: Phase 1 Report European Cultural Heritage. Christchurch City Council (2008) South-West Christchurch Area Plan: Phase 1 Report Urban Design. Christchurch City Council (2007) South-West Christchurch Area Plan: Phase 1 Report A Basis for Assessment. Christchurch City Council (2007) South-West Christchurch Area Plan: Phase 1 Report Ground and Surface Water Management. Christchurch City Council (2007) South-West Christchurch Area Plan: Phase 1 Report Landscape Values. CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 208 of 286 Christchurch City Council, et al. (2007) Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy and Action Plan. Christchurch City Council (2006) Belfast Area Plan Landscape Assessment. Christchurch City Council (2006) Belfast Area Plan Phase 1 Report: Cultural Heritage. Christchurch City Council (2006) New Subdivision Resident s Survey. Coffey Geotechnics (NZ) Ltd (2013) Geotechnical Preliminary Site Evaluation R6 East Belfast, Christchurch. Coffey Geotechnics (NZ) Ltd (2013) Preliminary Site Investigation R6 East Belfast, Christchurch. Coffey Geotechnics (NZ) Ltd (2014) Geotechnical Assessment Report: Review of the District Plan for R6 Belfast, Christchurch. Context Urban Design (2006) Belfast Area Plan Urban Design Study. A report prepared for Christchurch City Council. Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (2013) Land Use Recovery Plan. GHD (2007) Report on Belfast Area Plan: Infrastructure Analysis and Costing Area Revision. A report prepared for Christchurch City Council. Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd (2012) Integrated Management Plan for the Styx River/Purakaunui Area. A report prepared for Christchurch City Council. Golder Associates (NZ) Limited (2008) Integrated Catchment Management Plan for South- West Christchurch. A report prepared for Christchurch City Council. Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd (2008) Integrated Management Plan for South-West Christchurch. A report prepared for Christchurch City Council. Property Economics (2005) South-West Economic Report Phase 1. A report prepared for Christchurch City Council. Rawiri Te Maere Tau, Rawiri Te Maere Ltd (Undated) Cultural Report on the SouthWest Area Plan. A report prepared for Christchurch City Council. Response Planning (2011) Evaluating the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Christchurch City Plan. Project Report. Response Planning (2011) Evaluating the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Banks Peninsula District Plan. Addendum Report.New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement Canterbury Regional Policy Statement Land Use Recovery Plan Central City Recovery Plan City Plan Banks Peninsula District Plan Page 58 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

209 Page 209 of 286 Banks Peninsula Landscape Study 2007 Evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of the Banks Peninsula District Plan 2011 Evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of the Christchurch City Plan 2011 National Policy Statement on Electricity Transmission 2008 National Environmental Standard for Electricity Transmission 2009 The National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan Resource Management Act 1991 Local Government Act 1974/2002 Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Strategy Hamilton District Plan Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan Proposed Hauraki District Plan Proposed Waipa District Plan Criteria for the Audit of Auckland Council s Section 32 Evaluation Report (MfE) Christchurch City Council Infrastructure Design Standard Christchurch City Council Construction Specification Standards Christchurch City Council Sustainable Energy Strategy for Christchurch Christchurch City Council Climate Smart Strategy New Zealand Electrical Code of Practice for Electrical Safe Distances Christchurch City Council Public Open Space Strategy Selwyn District Council Subdivision Design Guide 2009 Selwyn District Plan Planning Quarterly The 800m Circle Page 59 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

210 APPENDIX 1: New Neighbourhood Comprehensive and Subdivision process CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 210 of 286

211 Page 211 of 286 Appendix 14: New Neighbourhood Comprehensive and Subdivide first subdivision process New Neighbourhoods : Information Requirements THE NEW NEIGHBOURHOOD ZONE The New Neighbourhood zone is a new zone contained within the proposed Christchurch District Plan that aims to provide a planning framework to stimulate the creation of high quality, distinctive new communities on medium to large greenfield sites which offer a range and choice of residential options to meet different household types and sizes. The New Neighbourhood zone is intended to progressively supersede the current Living Greenfields (Living G) Zone of the Christchurch City Plan. The intent is to move towards a Comprehensive Development Process as an alternative to the traditional sequential Subdivision then Land Use approach. In light of consultation, council is willing to concede that this approach will be challenging to some parts of the development industry and so variants of the approach are proposed. Having said this, whilst the council has retained a consenting pathway that maintains a two stage approach, this variant builds more expectation that the subdivision process better defines the eventual nature and diversity of the homes built and the corresponding contribution to the look and feel of the built environment. RATIONALE WHAT THE NEW ZONE IS SEEKING TO ACHIEVE? One of the biggest concerns over recent large scale greenfield development has been the mismatch of building typologies/sizes to sites, the overdevelopment of sites, and the lack of housing choice available. While large scale greenfield areas are initially developed from an Outline Development Plan and then often on the basis of a master planning process, the initial subdivision consenting stage is an engineering and surveyor driven process which lays out the structure of the development and the development lots. This is not necessarily developed in line with the more detailed aspects of the master plans including matters such as block and lot layout. The subdivision consenting process ensures that land is set aside for all the infrastructure and general amenities that a community needs to be served by. However, the final residential development lots are driven by City Plan lot size requirements for Living G (e.g. average of 300sqm, 650sqm, 800sqm). These lots are then made available to buyers and builders whose own aspiration or business models, combined with the existing City Plan rules in regard to built form standards, largely result in fairly uniform housing typologies. In addition, some of the lots made available are intended for higher density development. City plan assessment matters are provided in conjunction with the generic built form standards for these larger lots. However, often too little up front consideration is given to the development forms for these sites, or the potential density they may achieve to, to deliver good, or anticipated, design outcomes. In seeking to promote better neighbourhood amenity and more diversity and choice of housing, a better relationship between the lot layout and the housing product is needed. To address this, a Comprehensive Development process is proposed that aims to give developers the freedom to define their own minimum lot sizes in return for certainty of the housing typology that will be built on a specific lot. This represents a step change from current lots being treated broadly as a blank canvas, upon which any house typology could be constructed. The table on the following page explores the three variant routes proposed and indicates their origins and purpose routes 134

212 Table 1: Process Summaries Comprehensive Development Process (ROUTE A) A1 Comprehensive Neighbourhood Description A comprehensive approach to the development of land whereby the subdivision of land and the location of buildings and their types are consented together to ensure that the built outcome objectives are achieved. The concept development phase for Comprehensive Subdivision is no more onerous to that currently taken through the master plan development process that underpins most greenfields development areas. Site size Minimum site size of 8ha (subsequent stages of a minimum of 7000sqm) Between 7000sqm and 4ha Regulation Lot sizes are flexible, being responsive to the proposed buildings and their relationships to one another, and to the proposed public space environment. Process A rigorous initial consenting process for a minimum area i.e. 8ha, based upon a master planning type process is combined with a finer level of detail including the lot and building layout and typology within a Lot Development Guide. As part of this a typical first stage would be fully consented his way. Once this consent is secured and the wider strategic subdivision pattern is established, subsequent stages would be subject to a more straightforward assessment that is really seeking assurance that development in proceeding in line with the built form outcome set out in the Neighbourhood Plan. Subsequent stages might, in response to market conditions, buyer preferences or other influences, seek variations to the Lot Development Guide which can be updated on a stage by stage basis. A2 Combined Consent This alternative that allows greater density uplift than might be achieved under route B. but across a scale where a Neighbourhood Plan envisaged under Route A1, might require an unreasonable level of detail. In common with the Comprehensive Neighbourhood approach a combined subdivision and consent process on a smaller scale and without the requirement for a Neighbourhood Plan is available. Information requirements for consent processing are still extensive as this approach is offering approval for the general form of individual houses. A minimum subdivision and land use development area of 7000m 2 is required. Lot sizes are flexible, being responsive to the proposed buildings and their relationships to one another, and to the proposed public space environment. A rigorous initial subdivision and landuse consenting process for the minimum 7000m 2 based upon a comprehensive block and lot plan, and detail including the lot and building layout, typology, unit type, building and landscape quality that provides a high level of certainty as to the built outcome. Subdivision First (ROUTE B) A traditional land development approach whereby the land is subdivided into lots under the subdivision consent process. However, in seeking to ensure that eventual houses are better matched to the lot a broad building typology will be assigned to each lot so that future interests in the land are fully aware of the built outcome expected and requires effect being given to it through the subsequent land use consent for the buildings. Between 7000sqm and 4ha CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 212 of 286 A minimum subdivision development area with minimum lot sizes of 300m 2 (400m 2 for corner sites). Building typologies are allocated to sites at the subdivision consent stage in conjunction with the site layout and are given effect through land use consent, if required. A formulaic subdivision consent for the whole site with subsequent consenting of individual houses based upon designated typologies denoted in the subdivision consent. 135

213 Page 213 of 286 CONSENTING PATHWAYS The three routes can broadly be summarised as follows, with the subsequent diagram summarising the process stages. The Comprehensive Neighbourhood Route [A1] set out in part RD1 enables a consenting pathway that requires a lot of information to establish the overall site (minimum 8ha) framework and vision for the built form with lot sizes not being prescribed but instead guided by what types and sizes of homes could be accommodated. In effect subdivision can therefore, potentially, generate more efficient use of land and higher financial return. Whilst broadly committing the development of lots to a certain type and scale, the approach does retain enough flexibility for individual buildings to be detailed to satisfy generic or bespoke buyer needs (within the parameters defined by the overall housing typology parameters). The Combined Consent Route [A2] set out in part RD2 applies the approach described in Route A1 at a smaller scale that of a typical urban block. The aim here is that a combined subdivision and land use process is used to plan the overall block so that, again the nature of the buildings can guide the lot sizes and, where appropriate, higher density (and financial return) can be secured whilst also demonstrating that the quality of the residential outcome is high. Given a block may contain homes at most the level of consent information provided will be substantially less than route A1, although across a development with many blocks this information would need to be replicated and so Route A1 might prove to be more efficient. The Subdivision First Route [B] set out in part RD3 is an evolution of the traditional subdivide, then build approach. This route fixes lot sizes to minima of 300 or 400sqm and requires consent for the subsequent use of that land. The key difference introduced is that at the subdivision stage a broad typology of house is nominated to each plot so that marketing to future buyers is clear about what can be achieved on the site and that built outcomes can be established to a greater degree from the outset. Figure 1 : Process stages under the New Neighbourhood Zone consent routes The two comprehensive routes (Comprehensive Neighbourhoods and Combined Consent) will involve a single combined consent process for each stage of development although further consents would be needed where a development chooses to create a large lot for subsequent development by a particular builder (subdivision) 136

214 Page 214 of 286 or a buyer chose to build a house that varied from the agreed types (land use). In contrast, the Subdivision First will require an initial subdivision and multiple land use consents for individual homes with corresponding implications for cost and timing. The Comprehensive Neighbourhoods approach requires the preparation of a Neighbourhood Plan. This structure also has to be underpinned by a whole range of other technical and engineering considerations Neighbourhood Plan Ideally site wide but as a minimum must cover 8ha. It is a plan for the specified area that contains: - An overall vision statement for the site linked to a number (say 10 15) of key deliverables/outcomes which may be linked to RMA outcomes (objectives and policies) or site specific outcomes (giving a clear steer to buyers and developers that these would be secured via covenants or other binding mechanisms). - The overall development structure provided by the Outline Development Plan, and more refined development structure for the area including movement network, open space, and infrastructure. This includes cross sections of streets and blocks and overall site wide strategies such as structural landscape elements. - Lot arrangement, size and allocation of defined housing typologies. This level should contain sufficient analysis to demonstrate that relevant development standards in the subdivision and residential chapters can be met (notably those related to daylight and outdoor living space). and hence will require an extensive pre application commitment to dialogue and negotiation with the Council in order that the consent process is efficient and smooth. To be effective it will be critical that it well conceived as well as being exposed to different scenarios in order that it can be resilient, flexible and robust across multiple development stages over periods of years where the economic cycle, social demands or other macro level considerations may change. The Neighbourhood Plan is agreed as part of application that also agrees combined subdivision and land use consent for the first stage of the development. Combined Subdivision and Land Use Consent As a single process, formally approves a developers stage of subdivision and land use consent. It should be minimum must cover of 7000m 2 and at least one block but may be considerably larger. It will consist of a sophisticated subdivision plan that - Outlines how the development stage delivers on the Neighbourhood Plan s overall vision statement and the associated key deliverables/outcomes - Give an explicitly clear steer to buyers and developers of the constraints, limitations and standards which are applicable to the site and how there are secured (e.g. covenants/binding mechanisms). - The layout of the stage including how it integrates with the wider site including movement network, open space, infrastructure which needs consenting as a whole. This will include block and street cross sections and, structural landscape elements and indicative detailed landscape concepts. - Refinements of lot arrangement in response to the defined unit types and size allocated to the lot as detailed in the accompanying Lot Development Guide. - This level of planning should contain sufficient analysis to demonstrate that relevant development standards and assessment matters in the subdivision and residential chapters can be met (notably those including daylight and outdoor living and service space, the public space interface (i.e. habitable rooms, boundary treatments), location of site access and car parking. 137

215 Page 215 of 286 Appropriate information to inform subdivision and land use standards will be accompanied by a Lot Development Guide. The Lot Development Guide is a document that will be cross referenced in consent conditions, in effect, making reference to agreed solutions that the development may used. Lot Development Guide This is a detailed document whose primary role is to outline approved solutions or variations than can be rolled out across current and future stages. In effect it will mean that development forms that are consented can use all the flexibilities in this document as part of the build to remain a permitted activity. Accepting that housing preferences and specifications may change over time, the Lot Development Guide is designed to be flexible, capable of being updated as part of any subsequent stage consent. However, the Lot Development guide is also a form of control and so if a buyer/builder wants to do something different from the approved solutions they will need a new land use consent. In effect it balances the flexibility needed by the developer with reassurances over the certainty of outcome needed by the council In theory the extent of content is open ended, but the Lot Development Guide must at least contain the house types, house floorplans, potential variants and variant features (e.g. verandahs, decking, windows, single or double garages, etc.) as well as boundary, servicing and landscaping variants/palettes which could be mixed and matched to generate individuality or to meet specific buyer needs. In addition to statutory content that delivers outcomes that meet built form and urban design standards, a developer may also choose to include non statutory elements within the Lot Development Guide to inform or guide buyers or developers as part of any vision to create a particular look and feel to the development that extended beyond planning controls (including being the basis for covenants). Having had the Neighbourhood Plan and Lot Development Guide agreed for the wider development site, as well as consents for subdivision and building on the first stage, subsequent stages are more straightforward and process efficient. Further consents must simply show conformity with the previously agreed Neighbourhood Plan, the normal statutory subdivision elements, as well as any necessary updates or additions to the Lot Development Guide. The Combined Consents route applies at a smaller spatial scale of development than the Comprehensive Neighbourhoods route. Combined Subdivision and Land Use Consent As a single process, this stage formally approves a subdivision and land use consent and as a minimum must cover of 7000m 2 and at least one block. A sophisticated subdivision and land use plan that contains: - The layout of the 7000m 2 including how it integrates beyond the site including movement network, open space, infrastructure. - Lot arrangement, size and allocation of defined unit types (see below for difference between building typology and unit type). This level of planning should contain sufficient analysis to demonstrate that relevant development standards and assessment matters in the subdivision and residential chapters can be met (notably those including daylight and outdoor living and service space, the public space interface (i.e. habitable rooms, boundary treatments), location of site access and car parking. A pared down version of the Lot Development Guide might be appropriate to inform boundary and landscaping treatments, or the use of materials and key architectural detailing As with the Comprehensive Neighbourhoods, if a buyer/builder wants to do something different from the comprehensive subdivision and land use consent they will need a new land use consent. 138

216 Page 216 of 286 INCENTIVES AND PROCESS EFFICIENCY The development process for new development areas has been complicated by a multi stage consenting process where instances of disagreement between developer and council arise as a result of conflicting expectations that emerge between subdivision and the actual development of individual lots. Furthermore, often clunky rules drive particular outcomes that sometimes fail to satisfy the aspirations/intentions of developers, buyers or Council. Certainty and Flexibility The introduction of requirements for a development to define building typologies at the subdivision stage offers the means for a clearer up front understanding of how a the eventual built out subdivision will take shape. This will improve certainty for all parties, yet because the typologies define only broad parameters maintains degrees of flexibility in order that the eventual homes built can be tailored to meet particular client demands and aspirations. These changes should contribute to a more efficient and productive consenting process based on a better shared understanding by all parties. Incentivising Developers: The degree to which a development pursues comprehensive development remains a choice for developers to make. However, the consenting pathways available offer process efficiencies and the ability to achieve uplifts in the financial yield of schemes as summarised in the table below. More Comprehensive Less Comprehensive Comprehensive Neighbourhoods Combined Consent Subdivision first No Minimum Lot Size Lot sizes fixed at 300/400sqm (Well planned arrangement of buildings could deliver multiple lots at under 300sqm) (Updateable) Lot Development Guide Each application will need to define its can agree building types and variants, own building plans and other built material palettes, boundary form details for the units envisaged treatments, etc. that can be rolled out on nominated lots across multiple stages within th initially consented Neighbourhood Plan. within the development and which lot they will be assigned to on each lot including any variations that might be offered to potential buyers. Intensive initial consent agrees Single Intensive land use and Neighbourhood Plan and first stage subdivision consent where lots are development (subdivision and land created and detailed house types are use) with a Lot Development Guide approved on allocated lots subject to containing approved house the usual built form standards and types/variants and other assessment matters materials/standards. Subsequent stage consents simply demonstrate conformity with Neighbourhood Plan and, if necessary, seek approval of alterations to the Lot Development Guide. Detailed building plans are agreed on a lot by lot basis in a land use consent process that follow subdivision Initial subdivision process establishes the lots and creates titles. Multiple subsequent land use consents required to agree the built form of individual/groups of homes Density Uplift: The current subdivision process sets minimum lot sizes reflecting uncertainty of future uses of sites and the generic application of corresponding built form standards in the residential rules. This approach limits land use efficiency on a precautionary basis. The combined consenting process possible under the Comprehensive Neighbourhoods and Combined Consent routes means that the collective relationships between buildings and the consequential indoor and outdoor amenity of housing units can be assessed, which in turn may prove that a smaller lot size is appropriate, which in turn can generate higher density (and corresponding development values). 139

217 Group Development/Economies of Scale and Marketing: The use of typologies and flexibility over lot sizes opens up an opportunity for more synergies between land sub dividers and house builders including the ability to front load market testing and presales. Assembling together appropriately orientated collections of different housing types combined with appropriate street amenity and open space can offer greater opportunities for small and mid sized buildings to bring forward small clusters (sub blocks) whilst larger operations may be able to extend themselves to whole blocks. These types of ventures can only improve construction efficiency and productivity as well as allowing developers to generate group character (e.g. common/collective landscaping or materials which in turn may enabling marketing of units to be more bespoke and exclusive than just a random collection of individual homes within a generic residential subdivision. BUILDING TYPOLOGIES CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 217 of 286 The introduction of building typologies provides a means for the subdivision process to indicate the broad built outcomes that will be expected across a development area without limiting the ultimate flexibility of developer or buyer to achieve a home that meets their needs. By nominating a particular typology or more detailed type to a lot, prices set and buyers offers can be more reflective of envisaged outcomes. In essence, all houses can be broadly summarised into particular residential building typologies. Within Christchurch there are four main residential building typologies, as follows: Standalone House Terrace Duplex Apartment building. Each typology, however, can encompass a range of unit types. So, for example, villas, townhouses, cottages all constitute Standalone Houses. Taking each one of these unit types, there is a range of variations that make up a particular standard or bespoke house. The subtle differences, whether in size, external appearance, roof pitch and even internal configuration contribute to different variants, may be endless. In seeking to establish information requirements for the Comprehensive Development consenting pathway, the table below illustrates the levels of detail for each typology expected at each layer of information gathering and the purpose for gathering that. 140

218 Page 218 of 286 Table 3: Information Needs Building Typologies and Unit Types Typology (Neighbourhood Plan Stage) Unit Type (Combined Land Use and Subdivision Consent Stage) Information Needs Variant Mixes (Lot Development Guide) One Typology/Site 2 3 Unit Types/Typology Unlimited Compliant Variations Lot size Building Footprint /Site Coverage Unit Type details and: Typology allocation Maximum Height floors to eaves and building envelope (including max maximum Fundamentals potential height and site Front yard and side yard setbacks Number of Bedrooms coverage) Recession planes Amount and configuration of garaging Primary Outdoor Living space Habitable rooms The development manual may therefore contain: Lot points of access Urban Design Assessment (glazing, Either generic Unit Types with modelled extensions, loft spaces, porches, conservatories (pedestrian/vehicle) entry, roof forms) etc Mixed use configuration Or individual detailed designs for standard house types intended to be constructed on site Mixed use floorspace These variations of type or detailed designs would be compliant with the District Plan Rules and therefore be approved solutions that could be built without any further consenting. Both of these would be accompanied by additional generic palettes of landscaping, fencing, walls, utility treatments (e.g. bin stores, mailboxes, detached garages), etc which would also be approved solutions to dress the building, its boundaries and accessways. Any variations from these approved solutions would be require a new land use consent within which the applicant would need to be compliant with the rules and the prevailing vision or principles set out in the Neighbourhood Plan. Purpose To understand the broad building form and location within the context of the lot and block, and wider public space environment as well as the means of access and servicing. For example the Neighbourhood Plan provides a basis to To understand the detailed relationship of individual buildings to one another and to the public realm. The consent stage ensures that the fundamentals of the detailed unit types used are appropriate to the plot to ensure privacy, amenity, To understand the degrees of variation within the unit types that would be compliant with the residential rules and assessment matters and could therefore be built without the need for further resource consent i.e. approved solutions. The Development Manual builds in approved flexibility which can then be applied over the consented building and lot. Anything that falls outside the agreed flexibility will be the subject to a new resource 141

219 Page 219 of 286 understand potential shading effects of different typologies on adjacent sites and public space and in turn allocate the best building outcome to the site, or design the site to accommodate that building outcome. security and safety. These aspects may or may not be tied to conditions linked to the associated Development Manual. Table 4: Example of how Building Typologies, Unit Types and Variants offer diversity of housing Typology Unit Type Variant Options (not exhaustive) consent. The key for the Development Manual is to cover off all the residual residential land use rules and assessment matters as well as building in sufficient certainty that the overall vision and principles contained within the Neighbourhood Plan are achieved. Some of the requirements in the Development Manual may flow through into covenants on land or other binding arrangements (exclusive of Council). Standalone House 1 2 storey (8m) Terrace 2 3 storey (8 11m) Multi Unit storey Village House 2 story Cottage 1 or 1.5 story Mews Cottage 2 Storey Stable Loft 1.5 to 2 Storey Row House 2 Storey Eco Apartment 3 storey Walk Up Apartment Storey 3 4 bedroom 1 2 garage Attached or standalone garage 2 3 bedroom 0 2 garage Attached or standalone garage 1 2 bedroom Attached or standalone garage 1 bedroom 2 3 Bedroom 0 2 garage Attached or standalone garage 2 bedroom Internal garage 2 3 bedroom 142

220 Page 220 of 286 (11m) Maisonette 2 or 2.5 storey Duplex n/a n/a 2 3 bedroom Ground floor single level Upper floor two level 143

221 Page 221 of 286 COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBOURHOODS Levels and extent of information needed Theme/ Discipline Direction and Regulation ODP Greenspace Transport Consenting Documents Neighbourhood Plan Composite Subdivision and Resource Consent Role: Overall Strategic Plan Role : Detailed lot configuration, interrelationships of buildings and associated outdoor space, and the interfaces between public and private areas Vision and Development Principles/Outcomes General rules and assessment matters Outline Development Plan infrastructure and other requirements Configuration of public spaces including Areas/widths of provision Vehicle access points Location and nature of any playground/court facilities within the green network Streets/access Public versus private access elements - Street layout, network and hierarchy hierarchy and intersection treatments (modelling for controlled intersections also required) - Street, block and open space cross sections, including on street landscaping and parking - Street furniture - Bus routes (if any proposed by Ecan) - Any areas of proposed non standard materials on legal roads are to be highlighted Pedestrian and cycle access and connections showing interaction with green and blue links Lot Development Guide Role : Defines agreed variants that can be applied to the lots Any necessary site specific rules, assessment matters needing to be applicable across this consented are or the wider development and approved solutions 1

222 Page 222 of 286 Landscaping (public or publically accessible space) Subdivision /Lots - Landscape strategy including planting, material and way finding strategies Blocks and lots - Block shapes and arrangement - Lot arrangement/layout - Lot sizes - Structural landscape elements - Indicative detailed landscape concepts - Tree species in public space Blocks and lots - Lot sizes - Site access - Location of outdoor living and service space - Public space interface elements (also refer to landscape - Location and width of site access - Location of car parking - Building arrangement Subdivision engineering drawings Landscape (private) - Generic plant palettes - Generic fencing and wall types, style height - Generic utility treatments (e.g. bin stores, mailboxes, garage types and locations) - Public/private interface treatments Lots - Outdoor storage and service areas - Outdoor living space - Site access Buildings Building typologies - Typology description (if non standard) - Typology allocation to each lot - Maximum Typology building envelope - High level shading diagram proving viable plot sizes and identifying conflicts to be resolved at detailed consent stage (9am/4pm Winter solstice) - Stormwater - Stormwater basins - - Swales Unit type by lot - Unit size (floorplates and bedroom numbers) - Detailed shadow diagrams - subtype allocation e.g. affordable housing Unit types - Building variants * - Building forms - Building material palette - Glazing 145

223 Page 223 of Extent of integration as part of the greenspace network *All buildings need to comply with Sustainable building standards 146

224 Page 224 of 286 APPENDIX 2: Draft greenfield residential subdivision - urban design issues and recommendations report - Context Urban Design Limited DRAFT GREENFIELD RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION - URBAN DESIGN ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT CHRISTCHURCH REPLACEMENT DISTRICT PLAN - STAGE I Prepared for Christchurch City Council 16 August 2013 Page 2 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

225 Page 225 of 286 Draft Greenfield Residential Subdivision - Urban Design Issues and Recommendations Report CONTENTS Part 1. Outline Development Plan issues 1.1. Lack of flexibility and usefulness over time 1.2. Relation to context 1.3. Creating a place - character, community focus/focal points, facilities, pre-schools 1.4 Staging of Development 1.5. Distribution of density 1.6. Dimensions and orientation of density A areas 1.7. Road layout 1.8. Roading detail 1.9. Dimensions of commercial areas/neighbourhood centres Addressing edges and interfaces Multiple ownership and differing development aspirations Use of layers Regional Policy Statement requirements Part 2. General Living G zone issues Part 3. Site layout issues 3.1. Design rationale/character/context 3.2. Type, location and size of open space 3.3. Capitalising on design benefits of stormwater management features 3.4. Street layout and design 3.5. Section orientation and proportions 3.6. Poor interface with the road 3.7. Use of back sections 3.8. Section size Part 4. Building design issues 4.1. Open space (site coverage) 4.2. Height 4.3. Sunlight and outlook for neighbours 4.4. Setback from road boundary 4.5. Garages 4.6. Fences 4.7. Service and storage areas 4.8. Habitable rooms 4.9. Separation from neighbours Interface between higher density and lower density housing Part 5. Higher density housing 5.1. General 5.2. Level of detail needed at subdivision stage 5.3. Small lot subdivision and comprehensive housing 5.4. Monotonous and repetitive building form TABLES

226 Page 226 of 286 Table 1. List of rules applicable in each Living G Zone Table 2. Comparison of allotment sizes (i.e. dimensions) rules applicable in each Living G Zone Table 3. Comparison of residential site density rules applicable in each Living G Zone. APPENDICES 1. Comment on recent development at Longhurst, Living G (Halswell West) Zone Page 2 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

227 Page 227 of 286 PART 1. Outline development plan issues and recommendations 1.1. Lack of flexibility and usefulness over time The more recent Outline Development Plans inserted into the Christchurch City Plan (CCP) have tended to be formulated by preparing a detailed Masterplan and then taking the framework of it to create the Outline Development Plan (ODP). The Masterplan shows us one way in which the site could be developed. It demonstrates that the required residential density can be achieved. The Masterplan is likely to undergo many changes as the development proceeds. Reasons for change could include lack of demand or provision for certain housing sizes or forms; unforeseen ground conditions; wrongly located or sized stormwater retention/detention ponds; unsatisfactory siting of non-residential uses; minor adjustments in section sizes and shapes which can have a knockon effect on the wider layout; different requirements of new developers/landowners; new land uses or activities emerging within or around the site. In addition, both the developers and the Council may well find better ways of doing things as the details of the development are considered. If the ODP is drawn tightly around the Masterplan and the ODP is then embodied in the CCP the opportunity to make changes as development proceeds is severely curtailed. There is limited ability to respond to the market or specific wishes of existing property owners. In practice what happens as the development progresses is that changes are made and the integrity of the ODP is likely to be undermined, such that its ability to provide a framework for development is greatly diminished. Recent Christchurch greenfield housing developments at Northwood, Aidanfield and Yaldhurst (Delamain) all differ considerably from their original ODP s which were drawn around their Masterplans. Outline Development Plans need to provide a framework and not a straitjacket. A more responsive approach would be for only those aspects of a development site that are fixed, such as development constraints (ground conditions), existing trees, watercourses, landforms, views and access points to be drawn on the map. The location, size and configuration of new key components and structuring elements such as local shops, community facilities, schools, the route of walkways, cycleways and bus routes through the site and the distribution of different residential densities, could then be provided as criteria or diagrams, in order to remain useful throughout the entire development of the site. The criteria will depend on the particular circumstances of the site but examples of criteria are: a site for local shops will be required in a central position, within 15 minutes walk of all residents. Provision should be made for a bus route to run between points x and y. Only one access from SH1 will be permitted, this to be at least 400 metres from the eastern site boundary A new park of at least 2 hectares will be required within 50 metres of the existing school Higher density housing to front onto the new park The requirements will need to be met by the scheme plan at the time of subdivision. Page 3 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

228 Page 228 of 286 Applicants will need to demonstrate how the overall requirements can still be met. The masterplan for the site will undergo many revisions as development progresses. Changes to some of the rules and assessment matters would be needed to ensure that they did not need to refer to a map base Relation to context A fundamental requirement of successful place making is to take as much design inspiration from the existing site features and context as possible. This is supported by the first of the seven principles of the Urban Design Protocol, namely Context, which advises that, among other things, quality urban design: o Recognizes and builds on landscape context and character o Examines each project in relation to its setting and ensures that each development fits in with and enhances it surroundings The first step in preparing an ODP should be to gain a thorough understanding of the site and its context. Existing on-site features, such as vegetation, landform, watercourses and properties as well as off-site aspects such as views, community facilities, walking, cycling and road connections all need to shape the ODP, alongside technical matters such as geotechnical conditions. Embracing existing features can provide a connection with the past, add interest and help to define a character for a new community. The need to carry out widespread earthworks to remediate the ground would seem to mean that existing site features will be difficult to retain in some parts of the city. Existing trees and hedgerows are often not compatible with residential uses e.g. causing shading or have a tendency to drop limbs or debris. Furthermore the need to achieve a higher density of development means that there is often insufficient space to accommodate trees. An understanding of what is now possible in terms of retention of vegetation and landform is important Creating a place - character, community focus/focal points, facilities, preschools The existing Living G zones are tending towards a similarity in design of a 'New Urbanist' nature. Development will inevitably be representative of its era, and this in itself helps to distinguish different parts of the city from each other. However, effort needs to be made to develop a particular character for each new community. Some Masterplans such as those for Halswell West and Highfield tend towards text book concepts of new settlement forms, with a centrally located neighbourhood centre providing local shopping and community facilities. Unfortunately, while it is desirable for all residents to have a local centre within walking distance, just allowing for it on a plan does not meant that it will be viable. The concern therefore is that a community is focused around a node which may not eventuate or may struggle to survive. Neither the Northwood or Aidanfield developments, which are Christchurch s forerunners to Living G developments (albeit of a lower density) have managed to attract commercial developments to locate in the business zones within the development. Commercial developments will only stand a chance if they can draw customers from a wider catchment area. Prestons and Yaldhurst ODP's have been developed on this basis. Ngai Tahu's large development at Lincoln also has its commercial centre right out front, on the main road and close to Lincoln University. Where such a position of advantage is not possible other means of providing structure to a settlement must be employed. Currently within ODP areas the only commercial facilities that have eventuated are pre- Page 4 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

229 Page 229 of 286 schools. Full advantage must be taken of these to provide a focus. Otherwise community or communal facilities, such as the country club facilities at Northwood, the tennis courts that are a feature of Gillman Wheelans subdivisions or public facilities such as a library, swimming pool or primary school must be used. Pegasus New Town, north of Woodend promised a wide range of facilities. The general store in the centre of the development struggles to survive and is subsidised by the developer. The original developers have gone into liquidation and the new owners (the Todd family) have said that they will be concentrating on the build out of the residential properties. This leaves the shopping centre, hotel, leisure facilities, road connection to Woodend Domain etc. unlikely to proceed. Consideration of economic viability to counter idealism is essential if future residents are not to be disappointed. Providing for a range of socio-economic and age groups helps to establish a balanced community. Variety in allotment size allows for a range of house sizes, although small allotments do not seem to be equating with cheaper houses. ODP's need to allow for other forms of development such as retirement villages, co-housing (housing developed on a communal basis, often with some shared space and facilities and usually incorporating sustainable development principles) or groups of apartments. Generally it will not be possible or appropriate to identify particular locations for such multiple unit development, but the ODP needs to have the flexibility to enable them. Criteria about their location may also be needed. 1.4 Staging of Development In order to aid the formation of a sense of community and to assist in the provision of community facilities, such as a bus service and neighbourhood shops it will be important that development proceeds in a spreading rather than a sporadic fashion. Provision of infrastructure may determine how a development proceeds to some extent, but the ODP should give direction. Where the land is in multiple ownership it will be more problematic Distribution of density The Living G ODP's set out precisely where different densities of development should be located. This is a very inflexible approach and is likely to lead to problems as the development proceeds. Any deviation from the ODP will have knock-on effects. What happens if, for example, there is no market for the Density A size sections but that the density can still be achieved through a combination of more Density B size sections and some much higher density apartments or retirement units? It may be that some larger allotments may be appropriate in the Residential Density A areas, for example on corners. Conversely smaller allotments dispersed among larger ones could enable design variety and allow for a mix of residents. Section size provisions do make some allowance for this, but the scope for variation is limited. The challenge is to find a workable means of ensuring that the required density is achieved without being overly prescriptive. One method might be to require the developer to demonstrate that the overall density can still be met as each stage of the development is submitted for subdivision consent. A blanket requirement to achieve 15 houses per hectare on all residential growth areas will not only lead to a homogeneity of development but also is not practical in some locations, particularly in the R18 (Hendersons Basin) ODP area. There appears to be limited take up to date of Density A sites in the Living G zones Dimensions and orientation of density A areas The masterplans which informed the Living G zones (apart from Yaldhurst) included higher density development in the form of long narrow allotments, i.e. only suitable for terraced Page 5 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

230 Page 230 of 286 housing. This form is carried through into the ODP's both through the precise identification of the density A areas (size and shape) and the spacing of the road network. Often the Density A units are on the east or south side of a road. The houses are likely to be two storey and therefore in this orientation their private gardens could be in shade for unacceptable periods. In some cases 'left over' shapes have been identified as Living A. It can be very difficult to produce a good and efficient design solution when the site parameters have been arbitrarily established. Both Proposed Plan Change 72 (Highsted) and Proposed Plan Change 80 (south of Masham) have Density A areas identified on the Masterplan/ODP for which it will be difficult to develop a good urban design solution (is it too late to do anything about it?) Road layout There has been a move towards a more connected and permeable layout in the Northwood, Aidanfield and Living G zones which is generally a welcome aspect. However, the grid nature of a permeable layout is not without its issues. Grid layouts are urban in nature and are not necessarily appropriate for the urban fringe locations of the urban growth areas. Small street blocks have the following disadvantages: a larger proportion of the land area needs to be devoted to roads at the expense of private gardens (when there is a minimum density requirement); pedestrians must frequently cross roads; junction spacings are below recommended standards; there is likely to be a high number of crossroads, which are potential points of vehicle/vehicle and pedestrian/vehicle conflict; they can generate a very monotonous subdivision layout and they burden the Council with a large amount of public road and footpath space, which must be maintained. The road network does not need to be as permeable as the walking and cycling network. In fact if the route is more direct on foot or by bicycle this could well encourage more walking and cycling. The idea of walkable blocks could be more helpful than merely seeking maximum permeability. A walkable block is defined as one which can be walked or cycled around entirely on publicly accessible land, this may be along a road, on a walkway/cycleway or through a public open space. A walkable block size (i.e. perimeter distance) of 800m permits an average 10 minute walk around the block and combined with other walkable blocks will provide a settlement form conducive to walking and cycling. East Belfast Living G Zone has a walkable block rule (19.3.5) but at 250 metres the maximum block size is far too small, as it will limit the layout options to a regular grid of small blocks e.g. a block 85m x 40m containing. 12 sections back to back each 14m x 20m (280m²). Loop roads and cul-de-sacs provide pleasant quiet and safe living environments where children can play in the street and allow for variation in layouts Roading detail The Living G ODP's show the road pattern down to a detailed level. The establishment of an internal road pattern at this preliminary stage acts as a constraint on design at the subdivision stage. There is little scope for realignment or resizing of allotments to avoid poor design solutions when the road pattern is already determined by the ODP Dimensions of commercial areas/neighbourhood centres Neighbourhood centres may be indicated as a block on the ODP. Once the development of the block is considered in detail it can prove difficult to develop a good urban design solution for a number of reasons e.g.: Page 6 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

231 Page 231 of 286 The dimensions may be such that there is not sufficient space for an efficient car park layout The orientation of the block may mean that the shop fronts face south and is not a pleasant outdoor space for pedestrians or cafe tables The size and shape of the block may make it difficult to provide units of sizes and dimensions that are attractive to tenants or may create a need for an amount of active frontage that is not practical It may be difficult to achieve a good interface with adjacent residential properties Also what will happen if there are no takers for the space allocated, are the dimensions suitable for development for residential use? Indicating a suitable location with a symbol (as in the SWAP) would avoid the need to pin down the dimensions Addressing edges and interfaces Lack of attention to interfaces at the ODP stage is a major concern. Sensitive interfaces between existing landscapes/townscapes and new development are important elements of place making. Interface with existing roads Lack of forethought and control at the ODP stage can result in properties backing onto roads with high fences and little space for landscaping. For example neither the Halswell West or the Awatea ODPs set out how the Halswell Junction Road frontage should be treated. As subdivision applications are proceeding a mish-mash of mostly unsatisfactory treatments are emerging. In cases where the adjacent road is a limited access road, individual accesses may be undesirable but solutions need to be established at the ODP stage. It may be that a landscape buffer should be established to create a green frontage, alternatively houses may face the road (particularly if they face south or east towards it) but be accessed via a slip road or access from the internal road network. The ODP needs to establish how the interface will be handled so that it is consistent along the whole frontage. Interface with rural land Where ODP areas have an interface with rural land a decision needs to be made about how it should interface, especially if the edge is visible across the landscape. It may be that the sections on the edge should be larger and have requirements about planting and fencing and a greater building set back from the rural edge, alternatively a harder edge may be appropriate with a roadway along the boundary and properties facing the rural land across it. The District Plan includes a rule for Milns Road regarding the interface with the rural land across the road, which has been reasonably successful. Interface with open space Again, a decision needs to be made at the ODP stage. Generally houses should front onto open space, but this may not always be possible or appropriate. Larger, more natural and informal spaces may have houses backing onto them - in which case planting and fencing conditions will be needed. Hendersons Basin is going to have a lot of interface with the wetlands/stormwater ponds, which needs to be carefully thought through and controlled. Interface with existing residential areas Where an ODP abuts the edge of an existing Living 1 residential area it should ensure that the new and the existing development is compatible. This may mean larger sections, restriction to single storey, larger building setbacks etc Multiple ownership and differing development aspirations Page 7 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

232 Page 232 of 286 The ODP's are intended to co-ordinate development. This sounds reasonable in theory, but in practice it is extremely problematic when there are many landowners. Some landowners will be keen to develop, others will have no intention and could stymie the development of a much wider area. The ODP will need to be carefully drawn up so that owners can as much as possible work independently of each other. This may mean running the spine road along property boundaries, requiring roads to be built right to the edge of individual land holdings, allowing for temporary access off existing roads until an internal road network is established, locating large areas of open space where each land owner contributes or establishing some means of owners without open space on their land compensating those with open space etc. In some areas large houses on lifestyle blocks exist which will need to remain. These will need to be identified at the outset and designed around. They may have established gardens which can become a feature of new development, for example by becoming a reserve. There may be a need to provide a buffer in the way of larger sections surrounding such properties and/or planting and fencing requirements. Highfield has a requirement (Rule ) for boundary planting on a lot which is adjacent to a lot not in the applicants ownership Use of layers A system of layers has been adopted for the Living G zones. Most of this information could be included on one ODP, especially if the amount of detail is reduced as recommended above. It is important to view all the aspects together to see how they interrelate and separating them makes it more likely that the different disciplines will look at their 'own' layer only Regional Policy Statement requirements The LURP proposes amendments to the Regional Policy Statement. Policies Development Form and Urban Design and Policy Development in Accordance with Outline Development Plans which reflect the provisions previously proposed as Policies 7 and 8 of Proposed Change 1 to the RPS. Policy provides sound urban design support which needs to be given effect to through the District Plan. However, it is weak on visual interest and amenity and scale and style, which have been omitted from the previous policy, the District Plan needs to address this too. Policy is very prescriptive and requires a relatively detailed land use plan. In order to provide the detail required it will be necessary to prepare a masterplan. A masterplan prepared by the Council or anyone not subsequently developing the site is doomed to failure. The problems raised by embodying a master plan in the District Plan are outlined in 1.1. above. The later ODP's for Living G zones follow the requirements of Policy 8, but have many shortcomings as outlined above. If the LURP is confirmed as proposed, it will be important for the District Plan to find a means to reconcile the words of this policy with an ODP that delivers good urban design outcomes. The Methods for Policy state that the Regional Council will establish a protocol and guidelines to assist all parties involved in the preparation of ODP's (it is my understanding that this has been in preparation for several years). PART 2. General Living G zone issues There are currently seven operative Living G zones, plus one (Highfield) which is subject to appeal. They each have a separate section in Chapter 14 rules as follows: 18. Yaldhurst Page 8 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

233 Page 233 of East Belfast 20. Awatea 22. Wigram 24. Prestons 28. Halswell West 29. North West Belfast 30. Highfield Some of the issues arising with the Living G zoning are due to the Outline Development Plans. This may be because the ODP has pinned down too much detail in some respects (e.g. location and dimensions of different densities) or conversely that it does not provide sufficient control (e.g. lack of requirement for dealing with interfaces). Individual Living G zones have their own sets of policies. They occur in the Subdivision and the Living Sections of Volume 2. The policies that have been introduced deal with urban design matters. Some of them are more like rules or assessment matters and may need to be repositioned in the District Plan. They may be better attached to their Outline Development Plan. East Belfast has its own clause Objective and Policies for Living G (East Belfast) which is very detailed and contains a lot of sound urban design criteria, which would be appropriate attached to the ODP and could be used as a model. The rules and assessment matters contained in the District Plan are complex and repetitive. Each Living G zone has developed its own variation of the rules (see Table 1) first established for Yaldhurst, although the Halswell West provisions have been used as the model for the later Living G zones. The provisions are similar for each Living G Zone, with some variations, e.g. variation in section sizes in each density band and variation as to whether the rule for a particular matter is a development, community or critical standard. There are also some site specific provisions e.g. relating to access from specific roads. There may be some need for variation in the rules for different areas but largely one set of provisions should suffice. Many of the new provisions that have been introduced in the Living G zones are applicable to other zones and conversely many of the Living G provisions are already included for other Living zones so a merging of the provision would seem to be appropriate. The North West Belfast provisions state Clause 29 Note: All other subdivision rules in Part 14 of Volume 3 of the City Plan apply to the Living G (North WestBelfast) zone except where they conflict with the following rules. This doesn't seem to be stated explicitly for other Living G Zones but presume it also applies. Most of the Living G zones have a neighbourhood centre or two indicated on the ODP. For these B1 subdivision rules are to be followed, except for Prestons which is B2. There are shortcomings and omissions in the existing rules and assessment matters which could be rectified through this review of the District Plan but perhaps a more fundamental review is necessary. Selwyn District Council have reviewed their Subdivision and Living Zone provisions over the past few years culminating in changes to their District Plan being adopted last year. They have introduced a Living Z Zone, which is roughly the equivalent of the Living G Zone. They of course are only required to accommodate 10 houses per hectare on their greenfield sites, however, examination of their provisions is recommended. The City Council's Proposed Plan Change 61 needs to be considered, it currently appears in the District Plan (highlighted in grey) to confuse matters, even though the Plan Change has not progressed. The Infrastructure Design Standard also needs to be taken into account. TABLE 1: List of rules applicable in each Living G Zone Page 9 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

234 Page 234 of 286 Living G Zone and Chapter 14 clause no. 18. Yaldhurst 19. East Belfast Subject Application of rules 19.1 Deferment 19.2 Development, 20.1 Community & Critical Standards Special Area A Development Standards Commercial activity area Residential site density Density range consent notices Allotment sizes within buffer area Residential site limit Stormwater drainage swales and water basins Creation of public open space Sites fronting Wigram Road Halswell Junction Rd roundabouts Development of land adjacent to Devondale Drive Road and access residential and other activities Walkable blocks Bypass corridor concept 20. Awatea 22. Wigram 24. Prestons 28. Halswell West 29. NW Belfast 30.Highfield Community Standards Conformity with ODP Density A & associated land use development Page 10 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

235 Page 235 of 286 Conformity with Outline Development Plan Special interface area Staged development residential & other activities Linear park road frontage Intersection spacing collector roads Roading design within & adjoining the Living G (Highfield) zone Network effects transportation Boundary planting Creation of stormwater drainage swales Site contamination Critical Standards Allotment sizes residential (dimensions) Allotment size and site density Residential site numbers Conformity with Outline Development Plan Residential allotment sizes (not met = noncomplying) Residential site density Neighbourhood Reserves Open Space Staged development Sites fronting Wigram Rd & Awatea Rd Access to Mairehau Road Sites fronting Quaifes Rd & HJ Rd Page 11 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

236 Page 236 of 286 Sites fronting Johns Road Development of Area Site Access Control of stormwater Deferred (Density C) Local purpose reserve (stormwater) Realignment of Horners Drain Provision of public transport Sanitary sewer & potable water supply Sanitary sewer Carrs Road kart club Site contamination Heritage & archaeological matters Information to be supplied with subdivision consent Flat Bush and Addison Park in Auckland (formerly Manakau City Council) and Stonefields (Auckland City Isthmus Section) are large greenfield developments. The way in which they have been developed and controlled provides valuable insights. Pegasus New Town (Waimakariri District Council) is a local model that is worthwhile examining. The Living G zone needs to deal with both site layout matters and building design matters. PART 3. Site layout issues Despite the words contained in the policies, bad subdivisions layouts, in terms of urban design, are still coming forward and the ability to improve them is limited. Some of these issues apply generally to all subdivisions and others are confined to Living G. Changes to the District Plan rules are needed to resolve these issues. Some matters will need to be addressed through a design guide Design rationale/character/context There is no requirement to provide a site context analysis or a rationale for the development. In some cases the ODP may have established a framework but there needs to be a means of ensuring that good place making occurs with focal points, views, legibility, variety, amenity etc. 3.2.Type, location and size of open spaces and pedestrian/cyclist links Larger open spaces may be established by the ODP. Open spaces need to be located where they form part of a wider network and have maximum usability and visibility. They need to be of an appropriate shape and size. Means to avoid spaces which only benefit a limited number of users, run between or behind houses or will have poor casual surveillance are Page 12 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

237 Page 237 of 286 needed. They should not just be used to compensate for the small section size of Density A units. Pedestrian/cyclist links should follow desire lines. They need to be wide enough, but not too wide (in order not to waste space), short and straight and not to be a maintenance burden for Council. Generally it is better to design the layout so that the need for pedestrian/cyclist links is minimised Capitalising on design benefits of stormwater management features Retention basins, swales, wetlands and watercourses need to be harnessed as positive features and interface appropriately with residential sections Street layout and design There is a need to ensure a logical and legible street pattern which provides a balance between movement, access and place. Walkable blocks as well as good linkages to off-site destinations need to be a requirement. Some of the detailed issues which arise are the liberal use of rights-of way, too many properties accessed off a cul-de-sac head, poor junction spacing, use of a rear access lane without a frontage road. Comment Has Council developed an agreed street hierarchy? Does the District Plan need to establish acceptable street widths and distribution of space across the corridor or should this be in the Infrastructure Design Standard? For Highfield road cross sections are to be included in the subdivision rules (30.3.2) Section orientation and proportions Section shapes and sizes need to vary according to their orientation, e.g small narrow sections are better located on the north side of a road. Layouts should be designed to avoid the need for private garden space to be located between the front of the house and the street. Sections should not have road frontage on three sides or excessively long road frontages. Stretches of road where all the sections are sideways on should be avoided. Generally houses should face each other across a road while backs should adjoin backs. Sections need to be wide enough to accommodate a garage which occupies less than half the frontage, unless they have a rear access lane. Larger blocks allocated for higher density housing (i.e. without being subdivided into allotments as part of the subdivision application) need to be of an appropriate size and shape. Table 2 below shows that the required minimum allotment width and depth is consistent across the Living G zones for the Density A allotments at 6 metres x 8 metres. Density B allotments are mainly required to be at least 10 metres x 10 metres and Density C mainly at least 15 metres x 18 metres. Comment The consistency of dimensions is a little surprising given the variation in allotment size and it is not known how much thought went into the determination of these sizes. A lot 6m wide would need to be at least 25m deep to meet even the smallest allotment size of 150m². It would not be possible to develop a 6m wide section on its own. A minimum section width of 10 metres would allow say combined width of 3m setback from side boundaries, 3m garage and 4m house frontage. For a 200m² section this would make the depth 20m, which would be an acceptable minimum. A minimum lot width for a house with double garage needs to be 15m. While the width is the most important factor, it may be necessary to also have a minimum Page 13 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

238 Page 238 of 286 depth requirement, otherwise the width might only reach the minimum for a small part of the site. Perhaps the section width needs to correlate with the section size rather than the density band. TABLE 2: Comparison of Allotment sizes (i.e. dimensions) rules applicable in each Living G Zone 18. Yaldhurst 19. East Belfast 20. Awatea 22. Wigram Density A 6m x 8m 6m x 8m 6m x 8m 6m x 8m 6m x 8m Density 6m x 10m x 10m x 10m x 10m x B 8m 10m 10m 10m 10m Density 10m x 15m x 16m x 15m x 10m x C 10m 18m 16m 18m 10m Density 15m x 15m x D 18m 18m Note: Living 2,3,4 = 13m x 16m Living 1= 16m x 18m 24. Prestons 28. Halswell West 6m x 8m 10m x 10m 16m x 16m 6m x 8m 10m x 10m 15m x 18m 29. NW Belfast 6m x 8m 10m x 10m 16m x 16m 16m x16m 30.Highfield 3.6. Poor interface with the road This may be caused by lots backing onto the road (often the case where a subdivision interfaces with an existing busy road) or because the lot orientation means that private outdoor space is located adjacent to the road Use of back sections In some cases back sections will be appropriate, for example to provide a good interface with a limited access road or in awkward shaped corners, but their widespread use should be avoided Section size The Living G zones have adopted bands of density i.e. A, B, C and sometimes D. Each density band has a minimum site size, some also have an average size and/or a maximum size. These vary between the different Living G zones (see Table 3). The density bands are difficult to work with and start to dictate the lot size and therefore the site layout. Anomalies exist such as: In some cases (e.g. Prestons) the minimum size of Density C is larger than the maximum size of Density B so that some size sections are not catered for; even if the minimum and maximum lot sizes are adhered to and the 15 hh s/ha is achieved, the average section size in a band is not met. This may mean that the average is out of kilter with the minimum and maximum lot sizes but are averages, minimum and maximum all needed. What purpose do they serve? Comment While there is some rationale for different site sizes in different areas due to particular conditions or situation, having such variable parameters for each zone is confusing and probably unnecessary. Careful thought needs to be given to both the need to stipulate lot Page 14 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

239 Page 239 of 286 sizes so precisely and to what the sizes should be. Does there need to be a range and/or minimum and maximum. Do these rules actually deliver 15 hhs/ha?. How easy/helpful are they for applicants to work with?. My thoughts are along the lines of 200m² minimum lot size for two storey house and a 300m² minimum lot size for single storey houses and corner sites. For comprehensive development smaller lot sizes would be possible where subdivision occurs at the same time or after land use consent. If Council is concerned that there will be too many small allotments then this might be controlled by a minimum average or a maximum number of households per hectare. TABLE 3: Comparison of Residential Site Density rules applicable in each Living G Zone 18. Yaldhurst Density A Average lot size range m² East Belfast 20. Awatea 22. Wigram 24. Prestons 28. Halswell West Minimum lot size m² Maximum lot size m² NW Belfast 30.Highfield Density B Average lot size range m² Minimum lot size m² Maximum lot size m² Density C Average lot size range m² Minimum lot size m² Maximum lot size m² Density D Average lot size range m² Minimum lot size m² Maximum lot size m² 1000 Note: Living 1: Minimum 450m², minimum average 550m² Living 2,3 & 4: Minimum 330m², Minimum average 350m² Local facilities Page 15 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

240 Page 240 of 286 Where the ODP has indicated a need for local facilities they will need to be allowed for in the subdivision plan. If at the time of subdivision there is no potential investor then the same issue arises as with the comprehensive housing. One approach may be to nominate a group of sections for local shops, medical centre, pre-school etc., such that they can revert to residential use if there is no take-up with a certain period. The Delamain subdivison has a community footprint which was part of the ODP. The land is set aside but hasn't been developed yet. Part 4. Building design issues 4.1. Open space (site coverage) The Living G zones include site coverage rather than plot ratio controls, which is appropriate and encourages two storey development. The permitted site coverage varies between density bands and between Living G zones. Smaller allotments have greater site coverage, up to 80% (Wigram). This allows a sizeable house to be built on a smaller allotment, rather than small allotments providing small (i.e. more affordable) houses. Even the smallest Density A site of 150m² with a footprint occupying 50% of the site could have a floor area (including garage) of 150m². As the site coverage is expressed as a percentage, it is difficult to understand why smaller allotments should have a greater percentage site coverage. Maximum permitted site coverage for smaller allotments (say those below 450m²) could be 40%. consistent with the Living 2 zones. This is also consistent with the Living 3 zone plot ratio of 0.8. (i.e. 2 storey house occupying 40% of the site). For larger allotments the site coverage could be 35%, as for the Living 1 zone Height The Living G zones allow for higher density development to be built to 3 storeys (11 metres). Incorporating three storey houses in such a way that they will not cause unacceptable loss of amenity and privacy to adjoining properties or be incongruous in their suburban setting is a difficult design challenge. It is recommended that provision should not be made for three storey buildings on standalone allotments, instead they should only be developed as part of a comprehensive package Sunlight and outlook for neighbours The Living G zones have adopted recession planes for the control of shading. It is questionable whether they are workable or appropriate for the Density A or Density B situations. In particular where terrace houses step back and forth non-compliances with the recession planes will occur. Two storey houses could be problematic on the narrower lots. For example a two storey house on a Density A or B allotment, would need to be setback around 4m from its southern boundary to fall within the recession plane. This could cause difficulties where lots aligned east-west are less than 12m wide. A simple solution would be for conventional allotments to comply with the recession plane Diagram A and there be no recession plane requirement for Density A allotments except where they adjoin conventional allotments. The degree to which houses on Density A allotments shade each other would be controlled both by the designers of the houses and by assessment matters. However, the whole issue of recession plane requirements for higher density housing really needs reviewing, including testing of various house types and orientations Setback from road boundary The Living G Zones permit smaller minimum setbacks than currently exist in the suburban Page 16 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

241 Page 241 of 286 living zones, a lesser setback will provide a closer connection with the street, help in achieving higher densities while still permitting a reasonable sized private garden space to the rear and help to diminish the impact of garage doors. However, the higher density setbacks are often only two metres which causes issues. The house is very close to the street and houses could potentially face each other across a lane (perhaps as little as 10m between opposing frontages) and there is little room for landscaping. 3m would be more appropriate. Also if densities are not so rigidly defined there could be instances where neighbouring sections have different setback requirements. Perhaps there should be a blanket minimum setback of 3 metres. Some Living G zones have a maximum setback, this could be problematic and is probably an unnecessary control. Also need to control setbacks from rights of way Garages The Living G rules have introduced controls over the setback of garage doors facing the street, but there is still an issue with them where the garage is at right angles to the street. Garage doors should not dominate the street scene, but requiring the garage door to be setback further than the front of the house can be problematic, especially where an integral garage is provided. Requiring that the garage to be no further forward than the front of the house might be more workable. Controlling the amount of frontage occupied by the garage is helping to reduce the impact of garage doors in the street scene, but where there is a double garage which occupies half of the frontage on a smaller single storey house, it still can be dominating Fences The rules generally require fences on the boundaries with roads or within the minimum setback to be a maximum height of 1 metre, unless 50% transparent. Open frontages are so much more attractive than those with fences of various heights. Master planned communities elsewhere tend to have consistent frontages (probably via covenants or body corporate rules). The need for higher fences for privacy is often due to poor subdivision layout. Ideally fences on street boundaries should be no more than 1metre (I would prefer 800mm) with no exception for a higher more transparent one. Corner properties are problematic with the need to screen the side of the rear garden. If the fence is behind the setback this will lessen its impact on the street scene, but corner sites need to be large enough to allow for this. At Longhurst (Halswell West) there are already a number of noncompliances with the fencing rule occurring (have they got consent or is it an enforcement issue?). Also need to control fences alongside rights-of-way Service and storage areas A rule is included which requires each outdoor service, rubbish, and recycling space not to be located between the road boundary and any habitable room. It would have an adverse effect on amenity if the storage area were located between the property and the road boundary, regardless of whether it is in front of a habitable room or not. Generally there seems to be a bit of conflict in the rules between the need for screening of parking and outdoor storage areas and the desire to reduce the impact of fences Ground floor habitable rooms The rules for Density A areas require each residential building to have a habitable room located at the ground floor. Having a habitable room orientated towards the street is important for connecting residents to the outside world and to provide casual surveillance. Page 17 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

242 Page 242 of 286 It seeks to avoid the situation, common in Living 3 Zones, where the ground level is occupied by a garage and the living space is pushed up to first and second floor level causing overlooking issues. This rule should apply to all residential properties not just Density A. The rule also requires each of the habitable rooms located at ground level to have a minimum floor area of 12m², a minimum internal dimension of 3m and be internally accessible to the rest of the unit. The minimum floor area could be unnecessarily restrictive on a small allotment Separation from neighbours There needs to be a back to back and side to side distance control between windows at first floor (and above) level to insure adequate privacy. A setback from internal boundaries of 4m is required in some of the Living G zones. This would allow windows facing each other to be only 8m apart. This would not provide an acceptable level of privacy. This rule applies in the Living 3 and 4 zones, however in these zones development is usually of an infill nature where more acceptable privacy distances would be difficult to achieve. The recommended back to back distance is generally taken to be 20 metres in urban design circles, but as a 10m setback from the rear boundary may make it difficult to achieve the 15 dwellings per hectare density standard. Recommend that any balcony or window at first floor level (unless above eye level) or above shall not be located within 8m of any internal boundary, except where there is intervening space between residential units, e.g a rear access lane, this distance may be reduced providing the distance between balconies and windows at first floor level and above is a minimum of 16m. This provision will also help to ensure sunlight penetration in rear gardens of terraced units in the absence of recession plane controls Interface between higher density & lower density housing Uncomfortable juxtaposition between higher density and lower density housing can occur. In some cases two storey houses may cause undue overlooking and diminishing of outlook, particularly if developed as a terrace. Depending on the way in which density is to be controlled there may be a need for special provisions to control boundaries between different densities. 5. Higher density housing issues 5.1. The need for 15 households per hectare For reasons of efficiency, sustainability and affordability a higher density of residential development in greenfield areas is required than has traditionally occurred. Traditionally greenfield subdivisions such as Northwood, have been developed at around 10 houses per hectare. Achieving a 50% increase in households in a given area brings design and market issues. The urban growth areas are at, or towards, the city outskirts and adjacent to rural land or lower density residential development. Increasing the density at the outskirts is contrary to expectations and therefore there is a need to accommodate the urban form in a compatible way. What sort of model should we be aiming for? urban village, linear, suburban, some very high density and the rest more traditional? In order to achieve the increased density a different product from the standard single storey standalone house built as a one-off is required. Unfortunately there is a reluctance among house buyers and builders to move away from this model. Reasons for this include the inability of small builders to build several houses speculatively, a concern about attached houses being noisy, concerns about privacy and shading, homeowners being used to plenty of space around them and for parking their cars, examples of visually unattractive higher Page 18 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

243 Page 243 of 286 density housing abounding in the city. Higher density developments often have shared parts of buildings and sites which need to be managed by body corporates, which is unappealing to many. The earthquakes have caused further aversion to higher density attached and multi-level models because of problems allocating responsibility for damage (particularly where there are shared walls between properties) and because of a perceived problem with higher buildings. Some developers (e.g. Gillman Wheelans, R.D. Hughes, Suburban Estates) are favouring the Selwyn and Waimakariri Districts because of the lower density requirement (10 hh's per hectare). As there doesn't appear to be much take up of Density A lots in the Living G zones to date, consultation is needed with the larger developers such as those mentioned above and Ngai Tahu, H Developments, Enterprise Homes etc. as well as housebuilders such as Mike Greer, Stonewood Homes, Horncastle Homes to get a clear understanding of their issues and ideas. The challenge is for the District Plan to facilitate development that achieves the density, meets the market and is attractive and appropriate to its context. Section size is used to control density, but this is not necessarily the best approach. An exercise was undertaken during the progressing of the Highfield Living G zone which indicated that even if the ODP zoning into different density areas and the section sizes were adhered to a density of less than 15 hhs per hectare could occur (around 13 per hectare) if the higher end of the section sizes was adopted Level of detail needed at subdivision stage - residual lot approach There appears to be an understandable reluctance, on the part of developers, to go to the extent of preparing detailed plans for higher density and comprehensive housing in Living G Zones, since it can delay the subdivision consent process, add substantial upfront costs. Also, the developer doing the land subdivision is usually not the same as the developer building the houses. Comprehensive housing demands a different approach than that of conventional subdivision. Successful comprehensive development will start with the design and layout of the buildings so that they relate well to each other and to public space. They need to be arranged to achieve good standards of outlook, privacy and receipt of sunlight and daylight. Subdivision of the land will follow in accordance with the pattern of building layout. Resulting allotments are likely to vary in shape and size (and may well be irregularly shaped), alternatively there may be no need for subdivision, as in the case of a retirement village or apartments for example. If higher densities are to be achieved, the District Plan provisions need to encourage comprehensive development, rather than make it difficult. For any areas that are proposed for comprehensive development the Council needs to be satisfied that the site is of an appropriate shape and size to accommodate development that will meet the District Plan provisions for higher density housing but comprehensive building and allotment design information is not necessary. Instead the subdivider should be required to provide a concept plan that details the housing layout (i.e. building footprints), and intended number of storeys, access and parking arrangements and any on-site open space Small lot subdivision or comprehensive housing. There is a distinction to be made between small lot subdivision and comprehensive housing. Small lot subdivision follows the conventional process of preparing a subdivision first and then subsequent purchasers designing and building houses to suit allotments. Comprehensive housing enables buildings to be designed and arranged so that they suit the site context and relate well to each other. The highest densities can only be satisfactorily achieved by following the second method. The density A sections of Living G zones have tended to be envisaged as blocks of small lots Page 19 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

244 Page 244 of 286 (terraces). These need to be developed as a group. But small lots around 300m² can be developed individually or in pairs with small houses. Section shapes will need to be squarer rather than long and narrow. The ability to achieve higher density through generally smaller lots across the board should be available to developers and would likely be more acceptable to the market. The proposed Oakvale subdivision at Glovers Road, Halswell (prepared as a non-complying subdivision ahead of an ODP) is an example of a more informal approach to achieving 15 hh's/ha. Successful local comprehensive developments such as Tonbridge Mews (designed by the late Peter Beaven) and some of the City Council social housing complexes prove that there is a model other than long lines of terraces. Selwyn District Council's Medium Density Design Guide and District Plan provisions deal with small lot subdivision and comprehensive developments Repetitive and monotonous housing forms With higher density development there is a real danger that housing forms will be repetitive and monotonous. One house type can repeated for a long stretch along the street. Some Density A areas are of a shape that can only be developed for long lines of terraces. Some way of avoiding excessive repetition is needed. Page 20 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

245 Page 245 of 286 APPENDIX 3 : TOWARDS A RATIONALISATION OF ZONING OF RESIDENTIAL GREENFIELD PRIORITY AREAS TOWARDS A RATIONALISATION OF ZONING OF RESIDENTIAL GREENFIELD PRIORITY AREAS CHRISTCHURCH REPLACEMENT DISTRICT PLAN - STAGE II Prepared for Christchurch City Council 16 April 2015 Page 21 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

246 Page 246 of 286 CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1 2. Comparison of Living G Zone provisions and Residential 1 New Neighbourhood Zone provisions 2.1. Subdivision Provisions Outline Development Plans Built form provisions Site specific requirements Commercial activities 8 3. Conclusion 9 Appendix 1 10 Testing of compatibility of subdivisions prepared under the Living G Zone provisions with the RNN provisions Appendix 2 20 Rationalisation of Outline Development Plans and accompanying layer diagrams for Living G Zones Attachment 1 Draft greenfield residential subdivision urban design issues and recommendations report - 16 August 2013

247 Page 247 of INTRODUCTION 1.1. The Land Use Recovery Plan identifies a number of Residential Greenfield Priority Areas within the Christchurch City Council boundary. Some of these are currently zoned Living G, two are proposed as Residential New Neighbourhood in Stage 1 of the Christchurch Replacement District Plan (CRDP) and the remainder have been proposed as Future Urban Development Areas in the draft Stage 2 proposal. The Ministers for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery and the Minister for the Environment have provided comments on the draft proposals for the CRDP highlighting the multiple and confusing residential zones, especially within the Greenfield priority areas identified by the LURP Ideally all of the Residential Greenfield Priority Areas would have the same zoning. Given the difficulties experienced with the complex and prescriptive Living G Zones 1 and an objective in developing the Residential New Neighbourhood provisions to rectify these issues, it would be preferable, both in terms of simplicity and ease of use and in terms of achieving good urban design outcomes for all the Residential Greenfield Priority Areas to be rezoned RNN (or possibly other Residential Zones introduced through Stage 1) and for the Living G Zoning to cease to exist. This report considers the implication and practicality of effecting this change. Due to time constraints this is necessarily a somewhat cursory examination, however it is based on an in-depth knowledge of greenfield residential development in Christchurch over the past 18 years. The primary objective of this exercise is to ensure the development of those areas currently zoned Living G is not made more difficult nor their overall development capacity reduced by any rezoning There are currently nine operative Living G Zones namely: Yaldhurst/Masham; Belfast East; Awatea; Wigram; Prestons; Halswell West; North West Belfast; Highfield; Highsted. These are in varying stages of development from not yet commenced to nearing completion. 2. COMPARISON OF LIVING G ZONE AND RESIDENTIAL NEW NEIGHBOURHOOD ZONE PROVISIONS 2.1. Subdivision provisions 1. Residential yield Both the Living G zoning and the RNN zoning require a density of 15 households per hectare Lot size and mix of building typologies The Living G zones provide for three or four density bands (Density A,B, C & D). The parameters of the bands vary between Living G zones. Each density band has a minimum lot size, Bands A,B & C also have an average lot size range.awatea, Wigram, Prestons and Halswell West also have a maximum lot size for each band. The new neighbourhood zone provisions are much simpler, with minimum lot sizes specified for standard lots and corner lots and an allowance is made for 10% of the lots to be smaller, mid terrace lots.this provides more flexibility in design and reduces the need to meet quotas of different lot sizes. 1 See Attachment 1: Draft Greenfield Residential Subdivision- Urban Design Issues and Recommendations Report. 16 August Yaldhurst/Masham has a limit on the total number of lots provided in the Zone of 1100 for infrastructure reasons, this equates to a density of c. 13 hh s/ha. Prestons has a requirement for 2200 lots overall (c. 13 hh s/ha). Page 2 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

248 Page 248 of 286 However, in order to ensure that the RPS requirement for variety is met, there is a requirement for no more than 80% of the lots to be for the same building typology. This means for example that 80% of the lots can be designed to accommodate standalone houses, with the remaining 20% being duplexes or terraces. There is no minimum lot size for lots formed within comprehensive developments or variable density areas. If the Living G zones were rezoned to RNN there should be little difficulty in meeting the new lot size or building typology requirement. 3. Distribution of density The ODP s in the Living G zoneslocate different density bands across the site. This provides some certainty for residents in determining the type of housing that is intended to be located next to them(although, in Living G developments currently underway, changes have been made to the Masterplans such that the density blocks are no longer in identical locations to those shown on the ODP). However, it is a very inflexible approach and does not lend itself to changes in the market or improvements in, or necessary changes to, layouts at the subdivision stage. The RNN does not predetermine the location of different densities other than in a general manner through the ODP. This means there is greater ability to have a mix of densities throughout the neighbourhood and changes can be made due to off-site changes, such as changes in a bus route or location of school. If the Living G zones were rezoned to RNN developers could maintain the distribution of density pre-determined by the current ODP, if they wished, but would have the opportunity for making changes. 4. Lot dimensions Each of the Living G density bands has a concomitant minimum lot width. This ranges from 6 metres to 16 metres. The RNN has minimum road boundary length widths ranging from 7m for mid terrace to 14m for corner lots, with a standard width of 10 metres. While the minimum for terraces is slightly higher, overall there should be little difficulty in substituting the RNN minimum road boundary length for the Living G lot dimensions. 5. Other subdivision rules The following rules are included in the RNN provisions which do not occur in the Living G provisions o Maximum cul-de-sac length o Minimum percentage of road frontage to public reserve o Minimum size for a reserve o Maximum residential block size (East Belfast and North West Belfast have walkable block requirements) o Allotment frontage o Minimum NN entry area widths These are provisions introduced to ensure good urban design outcomes. Urban designers were involved in the development of the majority of the Masterplans for the existing Living G Zones and whilst there may need to be some minor adjustments at subdivision stage it is not anticipated that there would be any great difficulty in complying with these rules. In order to test this, subdivision proposals at Awatea and Prestons have been examined to determine whether they would comply with the new provisions and if not, what adjustments Page 3 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

249 Page 249 of 286 would need to be made (see Appendix 1). Difficulties in ensuring an integrated development which develops into a community, are more likely to arise in those Greenfield Areas where there are multiple owners and no overall developer such as Awatea. The existing Living G provisions are not generating good urban design outcomes in these areas and the introduction of these rules would provide a better framework with more guidance for subdivision layout designers, without restricting development capacity. 6. Minimum area for a comprehensive subdivision and land use application or a variable density area This requirement in the RNN provisions is to ensure that a site is of sufficient size and dimensions to enable a comprehensive development as opposed to a small lot subdivision. The minimum dimension allows for back to back development and the minimum size is sufficient to create a cluster of housing with communal areas if necessary. Because the houses are designed as a collection, the relationships between them can be established at the outset, hence the more permissive built form standards. To date there has been little or no take up of this opportunity in the Living G Zones other than for retirement complexes. This is for various reasons such as a perceived lack of a market for such a product (the aversion to party walls and shared ownership increasing since the earthquakes) and the capacity of builders/developers to undertake a project of this scale. Instead the Density A sites have either been developed as lines of terraces or have been left as future development lots, mostly one section deep. Under the RNN provisions there is the opportunity for larger clusters of development, but no compulsion to utilise the provision. The incorporation of variable density areas enables more flexibility in lot size across the whole subdivision. RECOMMENDATION:Replace the Living G subdivision provisions with the RNN provisions. However, there are a number of site specific provisions which need to be carried through to the CRDP Outline Development Plans The existing Living G Zones have a plethora of Outline Development Plan diagrams due to the adoption of a system of layers which separate out various aspects. These are generally repetitive and some of the layers are superfluous. The RNN provisions introduce a much simpler form of ODP as given for NorthHalswell in the Stage 1 Subdivision Chapter proposal. The RNN provisions allow for the more detailed consideration of the nature and form of a new neighbourhood to take place through the development of a neighbourhood plan. This process is designed to overcome the lack of flexibility of the current Living G ODP s as discussed in Attachment 1 part 1. It also means that decisions about the detailed design of a new neighbourhood can be made closer to the time of subdivision. As the Living G Zones have been put together as a package reflecting the existing Outline Development Plans and some of the Living G Zone developments are well underway it will not be possible to merely replace the Living G ODP s with the new style RNN ODP, but instead some of the layers will need to be kept and some may be amalgamated or updated. Page 4 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

250 Page 250 of 286 A cursory examination of the Prestons Living G Zone led to the conclusion that: o Most of the information on the various layer diagrams is included on the Outline Development Plan layer. o The location of density bands does not match those shown on the Density Layer diagram. o In order to allow for the continuing co-ordinated development of the Prestons Greenfield Residential Priority area the Outline Development Plan Appendix 3W needs to be retained. The Density Diagram 3X needs to be updated to reflect the Masterplan. All other layers can be removed and not carried over to the CRDP. RECOMMENDATION: The suggested revision of the Living G ODP s is included as Appendix 2, however, those dealing with the processing of the Living G Zones (subdivisions, land use consents, roading, reserves, stormwater etc.) would need to be consulted to ensure that they are comfortable with the reduction in ODP diagrams and confirm which text needs to be carried forward to the CRDP. Through the submissions process there will be an opportunity for affected parties to request the replacement in some Living G Zones, such as Highfield, of existing ODP s with a new style ODP if they wish. If possible discussions should be held with affected land owners/developers to establish an agreed position Built form provisions A brief discussion of each standard is given below. 1. Site coverage The RNN provides a blanket site coverage of 40% for all lots except where they are developed through a comprehensive process 3 or are a retirement village where the maximum percentage shall be 45%. The Living G Zones have a range of site coverage percentages with greater site coverage for smaller lots, this is complicated and somewhat illogical (see discussion 4.1. page 17 Attachment 1). In those Living G Zones where development is not yet underway the change from the variable site coverage provisions to a standard one should not cause too much difficulty and when designing a subdivision layout, lot sizes can be determined with this in mind. A problem will arise in those Living G Zones where properties are already built or underway such as Wigram, Prestons and Halswell West and the existing site coverage maximum is greater than 40%, since this would cause a reduction in expected development rights. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the RNN the standards for site coverage with exceptions for some Density A and/or Density B Areas of those Living G Zones already underway. 2. Height The RNN provides for a standard maximum height of 8 metres and a higher maximum of 11 metres in sites created by a comprehensive process. In the Living G Zones, the limit is generally also 8 metres 4, except for Density A areas, which have a maximum height of 11 metres. Therefore on the face of it there would be little difficulty in replacing the Living G 3 A comprehensive process may be a comprehensive subdivision and land use consent or a variable density area in a RNN Zone 4 Yaldhurst/Masham and Prestons also have a 10m height limit. This is not recommended to be carried forward as it is a complication and a height of 10 metres does not coincide with either 2 storey or 3 storey development. Page 5 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

251 Page 251 of 286 provisions with the RNN provisions, except that those Density A properties already consented would need to be identified on the ODP in order to clarify which properties have a greater permitted height limit. In those Living G Zones which would be developed under the RNN rules, after the CRDP became operative the difference would be that the greater height limit would not apply to smaller groups (under 7000m²) of small lots.given that development in Living G zones is predominantly single storey with some two storey development, this would not appear to be a cause for great concern. Furthermore if small groups of Density A lots were developed under the Living G standards, achieving a height of 11 metres would not be possible in many cases due to recession plane restrictions. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the RNN the standards for height with exceptions for Density A Areas for those Living G Zones already underway. 3. Recession planes The RNN adopts one standard for recession planes. This is Diagram A which is the most restrictive of the recession plane diagrams i.e. with the shallowest recession plane angles. The Living G Zones adopt various recession plane diagrams. Densities C and D adopt Diagram A in all Living G Zones, therefore there is no difference between the two regimes. For Density B areas the choice of recession plane diagram varies with A,B, C or D all utilised and Density A is generally Diagram C, albeit with special conditions where density A lots adjoin other density areas. Adoption of the RNN standard would make it simpler for those working with the Plan, however there are implications for achieving the density of built form anticipated. Including steeper recession planes for Density A areas could be carried forward for some Living G Zones, but it would seem an unnecessary complication to carry through the various diagrams for different Density B areas RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the RNN standard Diagram A with exceptions for Density A Areas for some of those Living G Zones already underway, which would be subject to Diagram C. Also include a requirement for the more restrictive recession planes to apply on the boundary between a Density A lot and an adjoining lower density lot. 4. Building setback from road boundary The RNN provisions require a blanket 4 metre setback from the road except on the south side of a road orientated east-west where a 4.5 metre setback is required. The Living G Zones generally have a 3 metre setback requirement. Higher density parts of some Living G Zones have a 2 metre setback requirement and in some Density C and D Areas the required setback is 4.5 metres. Where development is already underway and setbacks of less than 4 metres have been adopted it would be inconsistent and possibly incongruous to adopt a greater setback midway through the development process. However, where a development pattern has not yet been established a standardisation of the setback would not appear to be onerous, it would merely mean that in some cases buildings were set back a little further on their lot and will not affect the development capacity which is determined by site coverage. Setbacks from specific roads: Some of the Living G Zones have a requirement for a greater setback from a road bounding the Zone e.g. Highfield, where a 10m setback is required from Hills and Hawkins Road, because it interfaces with a rural area. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the RNN standard 4 metre and 4.5 metre except for a blanket 3 metre setback requirement for those Living G Zones already underway. Carry Page 6 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

252 Page 252 of 286 forward any specific road setback requirements. 5. Street frontage and street frontage landscaping and fencing Frontage planting: The Living G Zones all include a requirement for a 2 metre planting strip along the road boundary as does the RNN Zone. Garage doors: The requirement for a garage door not to comprise more than 50% of the ground floor elevation occurs in both the Living G and RNN Zone provisions. Some of the Living G Zones also have a maximum width of a garage of 6 metres. Width of Driveways: Some of the Living G Zones have a standard relating to the width of domestic driveways at the street frontage. This is not included in the RNN provisions. To some extent this will be controlled by the maximum width of a garage. Height of fences: The Living G Zones generally have a requirement for any fences within the road boundary setback to be a maximum height of 1m unless 50% visually transparent, in which case they can be 2m, whereas the RNN provision is for a maximum fence height of 1.2m. High fences can spoil the appearance of a street frontage as well as providing a disconnection between the street and the house. Also, due to a smaller setback requirement in some Living G Zones there is more need for an open frontage to avoid a hemmed in feeling. The substitution of the RNN provision would not seem onerous and would be in the best interest of creating a community. RECOMMENDATIONS: Adopt the RNN standards for frontage planting, garage door percentage of elevation and maximum width, and maximum fence height. Do not carry over driveway width requirement. 6. Separation from neighbours The Living G Zones generally adopt the longstanding 1.8m setback from internal boundaries (although Highfield has a 1.5m requirement). There are some complex explanations and special provisions. Standardising this rule should remove some complexity with little overall effect. The Living G Zones include a requirement for windows to be setback from boundaries.this is generally a distance of 3 metres at ground floor and 4 metres at first floor. The RNN Zone has a requirement for windows of living areas to be a minimum of 4 metres from the boundary. However, in other proposed residential zones there is a lesser setback required at ground floor level and this may be a mistake in the current (26 March 2015) draft of the RNN provisions. RECOMMENDATIONS: Adopt the RNN standards for minimum building setback internal boundaries and minimum setback for windows. 7. Continuous building length ridgelines, parapets and external walls. This rule is a standard one used in the Operative Residential Zones. It is a complex rule which does not necessarily give a good urban design outcome and is not included in the RNN provisions. Given the scale of residential properties in new neighbourhoods, long continuous stretches of walls or rooflines are not anticipated to occur except where a terraced building form is adopted, and in such cases it would be possible for long lengths of Page 7 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

253 unmodulated building facades to occur. The RNN neighbourhood provisions do not carry this rule over, however there is limited provision for this aspect to be considered for Variable Density Areas through the Assessment Matters (8.5.4.). RECOMMENDATION:Introduce a requirement to the RNN provisions for building facades over 20 metres in length (such as terraces on adjoining lots) to trigger an urban design assessment. 8. Outdoor living space The Living G Zones all have similar provisions which require a different amount of outdoor living space for each Density Band. The RNN has a standard requirement of 30m² for residential units with two or more bedrooms which is less restrictive and a standard minimum dimension of 4 m, which is generally comparable with the Living G Zones. A lesser amount of outdoor living space (16m²) is required for one bedroom units and studios. There is some difference in the amount of outdoor living space and required dimensions between the two zonings for upper floor units. In fact it is difficult to understand how the required amount of outdoor living space required for upper floor units in RNN will be achieved, since in most cases some communal space will be required and this is not always achievable (especially in the case of small groups of apartments) or desirable. RECOMMENDATION:Adopt thernn standard for outdoor living space at ground floor. Review the RNN standard for units above ground floor level. 9. Screening from neighbours The Living G Zones require parking areas to be screened by fencing or landscaping to a height of 1.5 metres in some zones and 1.8 min others. The RNN provisions do not give a minimum height but where fencing is used it is to be a maximum height of 1.2 metres. The RNN standard is likely to give a better urban design outcome and is less onerous. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the RNN standard for parking areas. CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 253 of Fences on sites adjoining the green or blue network Some of the Living G Zones have a requirement for fences adjacent to open spaces (and in some cases waterways too) to be restricted to a height of 1m unless 50% visually transparent in which case they can be 2 metres. A restriction on the height/transparency of fencing adjacent to open spaces and waterways does not occur in the RNN standards. A good interface between residential properties and adjoining open spaces and waterways is an important urban design principle. RECOMMENDATION: The current provision restricting the height of fences adjacent to open spaces and waterways should be carried forward for all RNN zones. To standardise fence requirements across the RNN Zone, fences should be restricted to a height of 1.2m. 11. Ground floor habitable space Most of the Living G Zones have a rule which requires each residential unit to have a habitable room at ground floor level which is internally accessible to the rest of the unit. Such habitable rooms are required to have a minimum floor area of 12m² and a minimum dimension of 3 metres. This rule is carried through to the RNN provisions but the minimum Page 8 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

254 floor area required has been reduced to 9m² through the Hearings process. Therefore RNN version is less onerous. However, in both cases the standard does not appear to allow for units which are entirely above ground floor level such as apartments (except for loft units). The Living G provisions require the ground floor habitable rooms to provide a total window area of at least 3m ² that overlooks the setback from the road boundary. In the RNN provisions there is a requirement for a window of 2m² for each ground floor habitable space which overlooks the setback. The RNN is now (26 March 2015 version) drafted such that it does not require the ground floor habitable room to overlook the street. This defeats the object of the rule. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the RNN standard for habitable rooms except redraft to reinstate the window area requirement to 3m² and ensure that there is a requirement for a habitable room to overlook the street. 12. Service, storage and waste management spaces Currently the Living G Zones do not have a requirement for service, storage and waste management space. Such facilities could be expected in a residential development of this nature. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the RNN standard for service, storage and waste management spaces. 13. Minimum unit size Minimum unit sizes are not required in the Living G Zones. However, the required minimum sizes included in the RNN provisions would not appear to be onerous for a development in a new subdivision. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the RNN standard for minimum unit size. CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 254 of Site specific requirements There are special circumstances in Living G Zones which require site specific rules, such as setbacks from the Southern Motorway (Awatea), setbacks from the Rural boundary (Prestons and Highfield) geotechnical setbacks (Highsted), tangata whenua consultation requirement (Awatea), special planting and fencing requirements, staging conditions. These will all need to be picked up and carried through to the CRDP, unless they are requirements that have already been met Commercial activities Most of the Living G Zones include some sites for Commercial use. Where they are already consented, such as at Halswell West and Wigram, they can be rezoned commercial and the relevant provisions in the Living G Zone carried through to the Commercial Chapter of the CRDP. Elsewhere where it is not known whether a commercial/neighbourhood centre will eventuate or its exact location or precise boundaries it will be more difficult to make provision for. The need for such facilities could be identified as part of the new style ODP. However, it would need to be allowed for in the Activity Status Table. Page 9 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

255 Page 255 of CONCLUSION The zoning of all the Greenfield Residential Priority Areas as Residential New Neighbourhoods would appear to be feasible and desirable. As a package the RNN provisions are more flexible and provide comparable development rights. RNN provisions would generally accommodate the subdivision layouts, distribution of densities and housing typologies currently underway in the Living G Zones with some minor amendments. Some more permissive development rights have been secured in some of the Living G Zones, particularly Wigram and Prestons. It is recommended that these are carried forward where development is already well advanced. In other cases advantage can be taken of more lenient RNN standards to compensate for those which are more restrictive. There are site specific aspects of the Living G Zone provisions which need to be carried forward into the CRDP. Page 10 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

256 APPENDIX 1: Testing of compatibility of subdivisions prepared under the Living G Zone provisions with the RNN provisions Test case 1 Awatea Living G Zone 7.5 hectare block at the junction of Awatea Road and Owaka Road CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 256 of 286 This proposed subdivision comprises 72 conventional lots, including two incorporating existing houses and two future development lots which are shown to incorporate 27 narrow (terraced housing) lots, making 99 units in total. See Figure 1. Living G provisions Compliance with ODP The ODP (see Figure 2) shows a band of Density A lots (one lot deep) along the northern boundary of the site, with the remainder of the site being Density B. The two future development lots and five lots fronting Awatea Road fall approximately within the Density A band. Residential yield The subdivision does not comply with the density requirement of 15 hh s/ha even if the lots incorporating existing houses are removed from the calculation. With these removed the density is 13.5 units per hectare Lot size Lots 3-72 all range in size from 450m²- 800m² (apart from the larger lots containing existing properties). They are intended for standalone houses. Lot 200 is 4242 m² and indicates 19 allotments the smallest of which is c. 140m² Lot 201 is 1700 m² and indicates 8 allotments the smallest of which is c. 170m². Compatibility with RNN provisions 15/hh s/ha required The standalone lots all exceed the minimum lot size of 300m²/400m² The smaller lots exceed the 10% allowance for smaller lots and are below the minimum size of 180m² Comments The location of a single line of Density A allotments on the south side of a road is problematic and it is possible that a better design solution could have emerged if there were more flexibility in the location of smaller lots. The conventional lots are all generous in size and could be reduced in width to accommodate more lots on this site. In order for this subdivision to comply with the new provisions (and also with the Living G provisions) there would need to be some adjustment see below. The lot sizes do not comply with Page 11 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

257 Page 257 of 286 the minimum for Density A allotments in this Living G Zone, which is 200m². Mix of building typologies 70 units assumed to be for standalone house types. Future development lots appear to be terraces. Distribution of densities The higher density lots are concentrated in the northern area of the site Lot dimensions Most lots have a road frontage of at least 15 metres. Maximum cul-de-sac length Lot 101 = 80 metres Lot 104 = 85 metres Some duplex or apartment units would need to be included. Thisdistribution of densities could be accommodated within the RNN provisions. All of the lots comply with the RNN (half the length of the splay on corner lots is included in the frontage length) except Lots 15 and 22 which are back lots and Lot 64. Both culs-de-sac would comply with RNN requirement of 100m and 150 metres respectively If some of the standalone lots were made narrower, these could be used for duplexes. Lot 64 could be easily adjusted to comply with the 10m minimum width. Lots 15 & 22 are more difficult to adjust. Minimum percentage of road frontage to public reserve Lot 300: Perimeter length = 205. Road frontage = 36.33m. %age road frontage = 17.72% Lot 301: Perimeter length = 166m. Road frontage =40m. %age road frontage = 24% Lot 302: Perimeter length = 158m. Road frontage =43m. %age road frontage = 27% Lot 300 would not meet the 25% road frontage requirement, however, part of the boundary is along a stormwater reserve. Lot 301 would meet the requirement with minor adjustment. Lot 302 would comply Although the arrangement of the reserves provides a view and a pedestrian link through the site, it might be more of a feature of the subdivision, more useable and in accordance with the CCC Open Space Strategy (which recommends a minimum size of 3000m²),if it were one larger squarer reserve. Minimum width for a reserve The reserves are 20m, 20m and 43m wide Comply with the minimum width of a walkway reserve of 8m. Maximum residential block size The blocks in this subdivision are Would comply with the Page 12 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

258 Page 258 of 286 relatively small. For example the block in the north west corner is 696m. Allotment frontage Every standalone allotment which has a frontage to public open space has a frontage to it of at least 10 metres The higher density units have a frontage of 6m or 8m. Minimum NN entry width Lot 105 would appear to be a NN entry. It is 6m wide. maximum residential block size of 800m There would need to be some adjustment in some of the higher density lots to comply with the 10m/7mwidth requirement. The access would need to be widened to 8m to comply. CONCLUSION: In order for this subdivision to comply with the new provisions (and also with the Living G provisions) there would need to be some adjustment. This could be achieved by: 1. Readjusting the lot width throughout the subdivision (apart from the two future development lots) to create more lots and slightly smaller lots (since they are mostly of a generous size). This would enable a reduction in the number of smaller lots to no more than 10% of the total and an increase in their size to a minimum of 180m² If there were 97 lots then 9 of them could be between 300m² and 180m² and contain terrace units A further 10 would need to be duplexes to comply with the mix of building typologies. Or 2. Lots 65, 66, 200, 300 and 201 could be combined to form a Variable Density Area of 8420m², complying with the requirement to accommodate a rectangle 50m x 50m and incorporating a pedestrian link if necessary. This would enable a comprehensive development with no minimum lot sizes. To achieve the required number of units to meet the 15 hh s/ha requirement, and a good urban design outcome it would probably also be necessary for some lots to be readjusted elsewhere in the subdivision to reduce the number of lots required in the Variable Density Area. A slight adjustment in the width of lot 301 to comply with the minimum frontage of a reserve to a road It would be less easy to eliminate the non-compliance of the 2 back lots with the minimum frontage width. If a scheme plan were to be designed for this block of land using the RNN provisions from the outset a similar product could be produced if desired. Alternatively the RNN could be used to Page 13 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

259 provide more scope in density distribution, avoid small lots backing onto Awatea Road and the stormwater basin and provide a single larger reserve. The RNN provisions would not appear to be difficult to work with. FIGURE 1: Scheme plan, Awatea CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 259 of 286 Page 14 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

260 Page 260 of 286 FIGURE 2: ODP Awatea Page 15 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

261 Test case 2 Prestons Living G Zone Development area to the south of Prestons Road adjacent to the western site boundary This proposed subdivision comprises 208 lots. These are split into different density bands as follows: Density A = 8 lots, ( m²) each capable of accommodating 3 or 4 units. Density B= 49 lots ( m²) Density C = 115 lots ( m²) Density D = 36 lots (800+ m²) See Figure 3. CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 261 of 286 Living G provisions Compliance with ODP The ODP Density Layer (see Figure 4) shows Density A lots adjacent to the linear park running along the eastern boundary. Density B lots along this boundary and also through the middle of the block. Density D along the western boundary and Density C elsewhere. The scheme plan generally follows this pattern although not precisely and a smaller area is devoted to Density A. Residential yield Information on the size of the development block is not available but given the generous size of most of the allotments it would appear that the subdivision does not meet the requirement for 15 hh s/ha. However, unlike the other Living G zones Prestons is required to yield 2200 lots overall, a density less than 15hh s/ha. Lot size Density A lots range in size from 680² 885². They could be subdivided into lots of 200m²+ (the minimum size for Density A lots in this Living G Zone) and produce 30 lots. Density B, C & D Lots range in size from 450m²- 880m² Compatibility with RNN provisions 15hh s/ha required 30 Density A lots represent more than 10% of the total lots and therefore would not comply with the RNN standards. Density B, C & D lots all exceed the minimum lot size of 300m²/400m² Comments Exception made for density of this development. In order for this subdivision to comply with the new provisions there would need to be some minor adjustment in the lot sizes such that only 20 lots were below 300m². Page 16 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

262 Mix of building typologies All of the lots, apart from the Density A lots, assumed to be for standalone house types. Density A lots assumed to be terraces. Distribution of densities The higher density lots are concentrated in the eastern area of the site. Lot dimensions Corner lots have road frontages of 14m (when the curved corners are taken into account). All mid block lots have a frontage width of at least 10m except for lots 23,24, 186 & 187. Maximum cul-de-sac length There are no culs-de-sac At least 42 of the units would need to be other than standalone houses. Thisdistribution of densities could be accommodated within the RNN provisions. All of the lots comply with the RNN except Lots 23, & 187, which are back lots. CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 262 of 286 If there were 30 Density A terraces, at least 12 of the Density B lots would need to be paired to accommodate duplexes to provide for 3 typologies. Zero lot boundaries would provide more useable space around the houses. It would be difficult to adjust these lots without changing the overall layout. Minimum percentage of road frontage to public reserve Lot 3031 is a walkway. Lot 3032 is a small reserve providing a link to the linear stormwater reserve. Its road frontage is 22% of the perimeter length. Minimum width for a reserve The walkway (Lot 3031) is 10 metres wide. The reserve (Lot 3032) is 18.9 metres wide. Maximum residential block size The blocks in this subdivision are relatively small. However, the block along the western boundary has a perimeter road frontage of 680m. If this were mirrored with development to the west in the long term, the perimeter of the whole block could be anticipated to be about twice this distance. Lot 3032 would not meet the 25% road frontage requirement, however, it is part of a much larger linear stormwater reserve, which does appear to have a road frontage of at least 25%. Comply with the minimum width of a walkway of 8m. Would comply with the maximum residential block size of 800m except block on western boundary. Provision for a mid-block road or pedestrian link (Lot 56) would provide better connection to land to the west if developed in the future and meet the RNN requirement. Page 17 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

263 Page 263 of 286 Allotment frontage Every allotment which has a frontage to public open space has a frontage to it of at least 10 metres. However, the Density A lots will need to be further subdivided. Minimum NN entry width Not applicable Density A lots would need to be re-subdivided such that each midblock unit has a frontage to the stormwater reserve of at least 7m and each end terrace 10m. The Density A blocks would need to be subdivided differently see below. CONCLUSION: Only minor adjustment would be needed to largely comply with the RNN provisions i.e: 1. The safeguarding of Lot 56 for a future road or pedestrian link 2. The resubdivision of the density A blocks to accommodate no more than 20 lots less than 300m². This could be achieved by resubdividing lots to accommodate 4 end terrace lots of 300m² and 7 mid-terrace lots of 195m² and resubdividing lots to accommodate 6 end terrace lots of 300m² and 12 mid-terrace lots of 185m². The loss of perhaps 2 units by these changes could be countered by the reduction in width of some of the Density B lots to accommodate duplexes or reductions in lot width elsewhere. It would be less easy to eliminate the non-compliance of the 4 back lots with the minimum frontage width. If a scheme plan were to be designed for this block of land using the RNN provisions from the outset a similar product could be produced if desired. Alternatively the RNN could be used to provide more scope in density distribution and a less regimented layout. The RNN provisions would not appear to be difficult to work with. Page 18 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

264 Page 264 of 286 FIGURE 3: Scheme Plan, Prestons FIGURE 4: ODP Prestons Density Layer Page 19 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

265 Page 265 of 286 APPENDIX 2: Rationalisation of Outline Development Plans and accompanying layer diagrams for Living G Page 20 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

266 Page 266 of 286 Zones There are currently nine operative Living G zones: 1. Yaldhurst/Masham 2. Belfast East 3. Awatea 4. Wigram 5. Prestons 6. Halswell West 7. North West Belfast 8. Highfield 9. Highsted Each Living G Zone has its own suite of District Plan provisions and a set of Outline Development Plans. The nine Zones are in differing stages of completion. Each Living G Zone is discussed in turn below. 1. Yaldhurst /Masham This Living G has three components: 1. Delamain to the south which is all built out. 2. Noble Village to the north which is all consented, however there has been little work on the ground due to legal challenges. The intention of this developer is to carry out a comprehensive development. 3. Masham to the east which largely complete The set of Outline Development Plans in Volume 3, Part 2- Living Zones, of the Operative Christchurch City Plan are as follows: Appendix 3n Outline Development Plan (Yaldhurst) This plan shows the density bands. These are not in accordance with the as built portion of Delamain, nor the consented portion of Noble Village. Appendix 3n.1. Key structuring elements (Yaldhurst) This plan is in similar vein to the RNN ODP. It includes a written explanation of the purpose and characteristics of the structuring elements which is very useful. Appendix 3o Layer Diagram Green Network and Key Principles (Yaldhurst) Appendix 3p Layer Diagram Blue Network and Key Principles (Yaldhurst) Appendix 3q Layer Diagram Movement Network (Yaldhurst) These three appendices have diagrams and accompanying explanatory text, which is useful in understanding the rationale for design and components of the neighbourhood. RECOMMENDATION: Retain Appendix 3n Outline Development Plan but update to reflect current location of the density bands. Amalgamate the other four appendices into one in the same format as the RNN ODP. The explanatory text can be condensed but should not be lost. Page 21 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

267 2. Belfast East No development has occurred on the ground in this Living G Zone. Council has had some preapplication discussion in relation to land to the west of Blakes Road. The set of Outline Development Plans in Volume 3, Part 2- Living Zones, of the Operative Christchurch City Plan are as follows: CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 267 of 286 Appendix 3s Outline Development Plan (East Belfast) This layer contains the density bands. Appendix 3s/1 Layer diagram Green Network (East Belfast) Appendix 3s/2 Layer Diagram Blue Network (East Belfast) Appendix 3s/3a Layer Diagram Movement Network Vehicle Network (East Belfast) Appendix 3s/3b Layer Diagram Movement Network Public Transport Network (East Belfast) Appendix 3s/3c Layer Diagram Movement Network Cycle Network (East Belfast) Appendix 3s/3c Layer Diagram Movement Network Pedestrian Network (East Belfast) RECOMMENDATION: The information from all of the layers be used to prepare a new style RNN ODP. There would appear to be little need for the density bands to be retained. Additional information contained in the diagrams and accompanying text should be carried forward in some way. 3. Awatea All of the land north of Awatea Road has been consented and is underway. To the south of Awatea Road, north of the Southern Motorway and west of Carrs Road there are proposals at various stages (from consented to pre-application discussion) for most of the land parcels. On either side of the motorway are parcels of land which are the subject of an affordable housing development proposal from the MBIE. The manner in which this is recognised is beyond the scope of this report, except to say that the development of the block as a comprehensive subdivision and land use scheme would appear to fit more comfortably into the RNN provisions rather than the complex density bands of the Living G Zone. There is a subdivision consent for part of the Living G Zone south of Carrs Road and north of Halswell Junction Road but for the remainder there has been no development interest to Council s knowledge. The set of Outline Development Plans in Volume 3, Part 2- Living Zones, of the Operative Christchurch City Plan are as follows: Appendix 3T Outline Development Plan (Awatea) This layer contains the density bands. Appendix 3T Outline Development Plan (A) (Awatea) This layer only contain the required width of the Conservation Zone either side of the Heathcote River Appendix 3T (a) Fixed Structural Elements (Awatea) Appendix 3T (I Layer Diagram Green Network (Awatea)) Appendix 3T (ii) Layer Diagram Blue Network (Awatea) Appendix 3T (iii) Movement Network Layer Diagram (Awatea) Appendix 3T(iv) Public Transport Network Diagram (Awatea) Appendix 3T (v) Cycle Network Diagram (Awatea) Appendix 3T (vi)road Design Parameters (Awatea) This is a table of road standards Appendix 3T (vii) Tangata Whenua Layer (Awatea) Page 22 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

268 Page 268 of 286 RECOMMENDATION: That the information from all of the layers be used to prepare a new style RNN ODP. There would appear to be little need for the density bands to be retained. Additional information contained in the diagrams and accompanying text should be carried forward in some way. 4. Wigram Development of this Living G zone is well advanced and it is expected to be completed by the time the CRDP is operative. The set of Outline Development Plans in Volume 3, Part 2- Living Zones, of the Operative Christchurch City Plan are as follows: Appendix 3U/1 Outline Development Plan (Wigram) This layer contains the density bands but they do not exactly match those in the Masterplan. There is a retirement village underway in an area zoned Density C. Appendix 3U/2 Key Structuring Elements (Wigram) Explanatory text Appendix 3U/3 Layer Diagram Green Network (Wigram) Appendix 3U/4 Layer Diagram Movement Network (Wigram) Appendix 3U/4 Figure 2 Road Heirarchy (Wigram) Appendix 3U/4 Figure 3a Cross Section Reference (Wigram) Appendix 3U/4 Figure 3b Typical Cross Sections (Wigram) Appendix 3U/4 Figure 4 Public Transport Network (Wigram) Appendix 3U/4 Figure 5 Cycle and Pedestrian Network (Wigram) Appendix 3U/5 Layer Diagram- Blue Network (Wigram) RECOMMENDATION: Redraw the Outline Development Plan to reflect the current position of the different density bands. The other layer diagrams are no longer needed. 5. Prestons Development of this Living G Zone is well underway with development on the north side of Prestons Road all consented and that on the south side of Prestons Road largely consented. The pace of development is such that the Prestons is expected to be substantially completed by the time the CRDP is operative. The set of Outline Development Plans in Volume 3, Part 2- Living Zones, of the Operative Christchurch City Plan are as follows: Appendix 3V Zoning (Prestons) Appendix 3V/1 Outline Development Plan (Prestons) This plan combines most of the information contained on the other diagrams except for the density bands Appendix 3V/2 Density Layer Diagram (Prestons) This layer contains the density bands. Appendix 3V/3 (i) Movement Network Layer Diagramand associated key principles (Prestons) Appendix 3V/3 (ii) Movement Network Layer Diagram - cycle(prestons) Appendix 3V/3 (iii) Movement Network Layer Diagram - pedestrians(prestons) Appendix 3V/3 (iv) Master Plan Road(Prestons) Appendix 3V/4 Blue Network Layer Diagram (Prestons) Appendix 3V/5 Green Network Layer Diagram (Prestons)Appendix 3V/6 Planting list Appendix 3V/7 (i v) Intersection upgrades Page 23 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

269 Page 269 of 286 Appendix 3V/8 Accidental Discovery RECOMMENDATION: Retain Appendix 3V/1 Outline Development Plan. Update Density Layer 3V/2 to reflect as built or Masterplan. There may be a need for outstanding information such as intersection grades to be carried forward. 6. Halswell West This Living G Zone is well underway and is expected to be largely complete by the time the CRDP is operative. The set of Outline Development Plans in Volume 3, Part 2- Living Zones, of the Operative Christchurch City Plan are as follows: Appendix 3W Outline Development Plan (Halswell West) This plan contains the density bands. Appendix 3W/a Marker Buildings and Focal Points (Halswell West) Appendix 3W/b Movement Network (Halswell West) Appendix 3W/cBlue Network (Halswell West) Appendix 3W/d Green Network (Halswell West) Appendix 3W/e Reticulation Network (Halswell West) Appendix 3W/f Tangata Whenua Layer Diagram (Halswell West) RECOMMENDATION: Update Appendix 3W Outline Development Plan to reflect as built or Masterplan. There may be a need for outstanding information to be carried forward. 7. North West Belfast Development has been consented and has commenced on The Groynes subdivision on the north side of Johns Road, although development has currently stalled. There is also a consented development in the western corner of this zone. Elsewhere there have been some pre-application discussions with Council staff but there has been little progress in this Living G Zone since its approval. The set of Outline Development Plans in Volume 3, Part 2- Living Zones, of the Operative Christchurch City Plan are as follows: Appendix 3X (a) Densities and Key Infrastructure (North West Belfast) This plan contains the density bands Appendix 3X (b) Living G (North West Belfast) Zone This is a diagram identifying the northern end of the block as Area 4 Appendix 3X 2(a) Green Network Layer Diagram (North West Belfast) Appendix 3X 2(b) Protected trees (North West Belfast) Appendix 3X 3Blue Network Layer Diagram (North West Belfast) Appendix 3X 4Movement Network Layer Diagram (North West Belfast) Appendix 3X 4 (a) Movement Network Layer Diagram (North West Belfast) Spine Road 2 Appendix 3X 4(b) Movement Network Layer Diagram (North West Belfast)- Local Road Appendix 3X 4 (c)movement Network Layer Diagram (North West Belfast) Spine Road 1 Appendix 3X 4(d) Movement Network Layer Diagram (North West Belfast) Public Transport Appendix 3X 4(e)Movement Network Layer Diagram (North West Belfast) Interim Public Transport Appendix 3X 4(f) Movement Network Layer Diagram (North West Belfast) Cycle Network Page 24 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

270 Appendix 3X 4(g) Movement Network Layer Diagram (North West Belfast Pedestrian Network RECOMMENDATION: That the information from all of the layers be used to prepare a new style RNN ODP for the whole of this Living G Zone. There would appear to be little need for the density bands to be retained. Additional information contained in the diagrams and accompanying text should be carried forward in some way. 8. Highfield There has been no progress on this Living G Zone since it was made operative. There are multiple landowners and the developer promoting the zone as a comprehensive development has apparently run into difficulties. The set of Outline Development Plans in Volume 3, Part 2- Living Zones, of the Operative Christchurch City Plan are as follows: Appendices 3Y(a) and 3Y (b) Outline Development Plan (Highfield) Appendix 3Y (c) Plants species for Living G (Highfield) Appendix 3Y (d) Cross Sections for Roads. (Highfield) CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 270 of 286 RECOMMENDATION: The ODP be converted to a new style RNN ODP and additional information contained in the other appendices be carried forward in some way. 9. Highsted This is the most recent Living G Zone and is a part of a larger Residential Greenfield Priority Zone known as Upper Styx. Unlike the other Living G Zones it is not one contiguous area but is separated into three blocks. Two of these have now been consented. The remainder of the Greenfield Residential Area remains as a Rural Zone. An ODP in a similar level of detail to those proposed in the RNN Zone has been prepared by Council for the whole of the Greenfield Residential Zone. This Zone has only two Appendices in Volume 3, Part 2- Living Zones, of the Operative Christchurch City Plan which are: Appendix 3Z Masterplan (Highsted) Appendix 3ZA Movement Network (Highsted) RECOMMENDATION: Convert the existing ODP for the Upper Styx area into the same format as the RNN ODP s SUMMARY The Living G Zones basically fall into two categories, Those that are well underway with many residential properties completed and those where development has not yet commenced or is in its very early stages. Page 25 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

271 Living G Zone Retention and updating of existing ODP layers required 1. Yaldhurst/Masham Update Appendix 3n Outline Development Plan RNN ODP required Use information from existing layers to create new style ODP 2. Belfast East Use information from existing layers to create new style ODP 3. Awatea Use information from existing layers to create new style ODP 4. Wigram Update Appendix 3U/1 Outline Development Plan 5. Prestons Retain Appendix 3V/1 Outline Development Plan. Update Density Layer 3V/2 6. Halswell West Update Appendix 3W Outline Development Plan 7. North West Belfast Use information from existing layers to create new style ODP 8. Highfield Convert existing ODP 9. Highsted Convert existing Upper Styx ODP CCC - Sarah Oliver Rebuttal Page 271 of 286 All of the Living G Zones contain additional information and requirements which needs to be carried forward although this may be limited in areas such as Wigram which are a long way through the development process. This could be incorporated in the CRDP or provided in the form of a separate Greenfield Residential Priority Zones Development Manual (similar to the Infrastructure Design Standard but containing site specific as well as general information). For those areas for which the density layer is not intended to be carried forward, there could be an issue if stakeholders consider their development rights have been downgraded from that which they would enjoy through the Living G Zoning. Page 26 of 108 Notified 2 May _1.docx

272 Page 272 of 286 ATTACHMENT D: EXCERPT FROM RURAL CHAPTER REVISED PROPOSAL _1.docx

273 Page 273 of 286 ATTACHMENT E: MARSHALL DAY ACOUSTIC - CANTERBURY KART CLUB NOISE MITIGATION OPTIONS _1.docx

274 Page 274 of 286 CANTERBURY KART CLUB NOISE MITIGATION OPTIONS Rp C 19 March 2015

275 Page 275 of 286 Level 3 69 Cambridge Terrace PO Box 4071 Christchurch 8140 New Zealand T: F: Project: CANTERBURY KART CLUB Prepared for: Christchurch City Council PO Box Christchurch 8154 Attention: Kent Summerfield Report No.: Rp C Disclaimer Reports produced by Marshall Day Acoustics Limited are prepared based on the Client s objective and are based on a specific scope, conditions and limitations, as agreed between Marshall Day Acoustics and the Client. Information and/or report(s) prepared by Marshall Day Acoustics may not be suitable for uses other than the original intended objective. No parties other than the Client should use any information and/or report(s) without first conferring with Marshall Day Acoustics. Copyright The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Marshall Day Acoustics constitutes an infringement of copyright. Information shall not be assigned to a third party without prior consent. Document Control Status: Rev: Comments Date: Author: Reviewer: Approved - 19 March 2015 Robbie Blakelock Jon Farren

276 Page 276 of 286 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Marshall Day Acoustics has conducted an assessment of potential noise mitigation options for the Canterbury Kart Club at Carrs Road with a view to enabling the club to successfully co-exist with future dwellings over the long-term. Based on our experience with the Kart Club, other motorsport activities, the City Plan provisions and international guidance, we consider 50 db L Aeq, (15 minutes) to be an appropriate criterion for predicting the onset of adverse noise effects. Typical residential development (or other noise sensitive activities) should therefore only be established in areas exposed to noise levels from the Kart Club of less than 50 db L Aeq, (15 minutes). A 3-dimensional computer model has been used to investigate the effectiveness of a noise barrier around the track in reducing noise emission to the surrounding area. Our predicted noise levels indicate that, even with a 10m high noise barrier, typical residential development would still not be possible within about 400m of the track. It might be possible for specifically designed residential developments to be located closer, but this would need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. In summary, if standard residential development or other noise sensitive activities are to be allowed to develop in the land surrounding the Kart Club, the track will either need to be relocated or housed entirely within an appropriately designed building. This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited Rp C Canterbury Kart Club Noise Mitigation Options 3

277 Page 277 of 286 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION NOISE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA MITIGATION OPTIONS Buffer Zone Noise Control Barriers Enclosure/building PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS DISCUSSION... 8 APPENDIX A APPENDIX B GLOSSARY OF TERMINOLOGY NOISE CONTOURS This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited Rp C Canterbury Kart Club Noise Mitigation Options 4

278 Page 278 of INTRODUCTION Marshall Day Acoustics has been engaged to assess potential noise mitigation options for the Canterbury Kart Club at Carrs Road, Christchurch. We understand that Council are considering the long-term future location of the kart track. Of particular relevance to the current Carrs Road site is the recent increase in demand for new residential development in the surrounding area. This introduces some potential reverse-sensitivity issues for Kart Club operations. This report considers potential noise mitigation options that will enable the club to successfully coexist with future dwellings over the long-term. 2.0 NOISE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA Marshall Day Acoustics has previously prepared noise assessments for activities both directly and indirectly associated with noise emissions from the Kart Club. We have also prepared noise assessment reports for Council relating to proposed new sites for the track. Historically, the following factors are important to consider when establishing a suitable noise level for the Carrs Road site: The City Plan daytime development noise standards for noise intrusion in residential areas is 50 db L Aeq; The Kart Club does not operate at night, therefore night-time noise rules are not considered; It is common to allow slightly higher noise levels in situations involving potential reverse sensitivity than would be recommended if a new noise source was being imposed on existing residents; Existing residents can currently be exposed to noise levels in the order of 55 db L Aeq. This gives rise to some complaints about noise; The World Health Organisation recommend a limit of 55 db L Aeq, (16 hours) for the onset of serious annoyance and 50 db L Aeq, (16 hours) for the onset of moderate annoyance; and Activity at the track ranges from a few karts doing training laps, to regular club meetings involving multiple karts racing throughout the day, and occasional hosting of large events over multiple days. From a noise emissions perspective, club meetings, busy practice days and racing events generate similar noise levels. Our assessment is focused on noise levels from these activities. Previously, we have considered noise levels of up to 55 db L Aeq appropriate for new residential development on land surrounding the Carrs Road site. However, this has always been based on the understanding that the Kart Club would be relocated within the foreseeable future. Until recently, we understood this would occur in the next 1 3 years. Given that the current proposal is to leave the Kart Club at the Carrs Road site indefinitely, we consider 50 db L Aeq, (15 minutes) to be a more appropriate criteria for minimising reverse sensitivity effects. This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited Rp C Canterbury Kart Club Noise Mitigation Options 5

279 Page 279 of MITIGATION OPTIONS There are essentially three noise mitigation methods available. These are discussed below. 3.1 Buffer Zone A buffer zone around the Kart Club can be defined by a specified setback distance or shown as an area on City Plan Planning Maps, creating an area outside of which potential noise effects will be acceptable. Residential development can therefore occur without restriction outside this area. 3.2 Noise Control Barriers Solid barriers can be effective at reducing noise transmission. However, we note that: There is limited space available to construction noise barriers around the Kart Club, especially along the southern boundary; As a reduction in noise levels in all directions is desired, any noise barrier would need to wrap around the entire track. This limits the effectiveness of the barrier; and There are potential adverse effects associated with noise control barriers, such as safety and visual issues, especially given the large barrier size. 3.3 Enclosure/building The entire track could be enclosed within a building, making it an indoor kart track. Noise emissions would then be dependent on the construction of the building. It is theoretically possible to design the building such that noise levels were low enough to permit residential development right up to the site boundary. While this is the most effective noise control method, there will be significant design and cost issues associated with this approach. 4.0 PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS A 3-dimensional computer noise model was created for previous noise assessments. We conducted noise level measurements at the track and confirmed there has been a negligible change in individual kart noise emissions since the noise model was initially constructed. The computer noise model has been used to assess noise mitigation options with the following three scenarios specifically considered. 1. Existing/No Mitigation; 2. 5m Barrier; and 3. 10m Barrier. Noise contour plots for each of these scenarios are provided in Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3 respectively. Appendix B contains larger versions. Noise levels are predicted under favourable propagation conditions such as occurs under a light downwind or temperature inversion. This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited Rp C Canterbury Kart Club Noise Mitigation Options 6

280 Page 280 of 286 Figure 1: Existing noise levels (No Mitigation) Figure 2: Noise levels with 5m barrier/bund around Kart track This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited Rp C Canterbury Kart Club Noise Mitigation Options 7

281 Page 281 of 286 Figure 3: Noise levels with 10m barrier/bund around Kart track 5.0 DISCUSSION As outlined above, we consider it appropriate to restrict new noise sensitive development to areas exposed to less than 50 db L Aeq from Kart Club activities. The predicted noise level contours show that even with 10m high barriers surrounding the track, significant buffer zones would be required. If residential activity is to be permitted inside these buffer zones, the track will need to be enclosed in a building. It would also be possible for a residential development to be designed such that a localised reduction in noise levels is provided for the development. This may include the following design aspects: Large buildings at the perimeter that screen the Kart Club to create low-noise areas; Situating non-noise sensitive activity areas such as bathrooms, laundries and garages in exposed locations; and Consideration of the façade sound insulation, especially for habitable spaces likely to be occupied when the Kart Club is operating. We note that new subdivisions and existing dwellings may be exposed to noise levels above 50 db L Aeq, (15 minutes). There is therefore potential for reverse sensitivity effects should the Kart Club remain at Carrs Road long-term without significantly reducing noise levels. This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited Rp C Canterbury Kart Club Noise Mitigation Options 8

282 Page 282 of 286 APPENDIX A GLOSSARY OF TERMINOLOGY Noise SPL or L P SWL or L W db A-weighting L Aeq (t) L Amax A sound that is unwanted by, or distracting to, the receiver. Sound Pressure Level A logarithmic ratio of a sound pressure measured at distance, relative to the threshold of hearing (20 µpa RMS) and expressed in decibels. Sound Power Level A logarithmic ratio of the acoustic power output of a source relative to watts and expressed in decibels. Sound power level is calculated from measured sound pressure levels and represents the level of total sound power radiated by a sound source. Decibel The unit of sound level. Expressed as a logarithmic ratio of sound pressure P relative to a reference pressure of Pr=20 Pa i.e. db = 20 x log(p/pr) The process by which noise levels are corrected to account for the non-linear frequency response of the human ear. The equivalent continuous (time-averaged) A-weighted sound level. This is commonly referred to as the average noise level. The suffix "t" represents the time period to which the noise level relates, e.g. (8 h) would represent a period of 8 hours, (15 min) would represent a period of 15 minutes and ( ) would represent a measurement time between 10 pm and 7 am. The A-weighted maximum noise level. The highest noise level which occurs during the measurement period. This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited Rp C Canterbury Kart Club Noise Mitigation Options 9

283 Page 283 of 286 APPENDIX B NOISE CONTOURS (Following three pages) This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited Rp C Canterbury Kart Club Noise Mitigation Options 10

284 Page 284 of 286 This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited Rp C Canterbury Kart Club Noise Mitigation Options 11