From:
Kim Kelly
To:
Adam McCutcheon; Amy Kearse; Dave Gittings; emily.thomson
;
Fleur Matthews; Hamish
Wesney; Jason Holland
John McSweeney;
Marsha Badon; Matthew
Hickman; Russell O"Leary
Sherilyn Hinton; Stewart McKenzie
; Sue Southey;
Sonia Dolan
Julie Cooke
Joanna
Laurenson
[email address]; "torrey.mcdonnell
"Kashmir.Kaur
Liam Hodgetts
; Kathryn Barrett; Peter Nunns; Alastair Smaill; Sarah Banks;
Joseph Jeffries; Lucie Desrosiers
Subject:
Output from planning and policy meeting 2nd December
Date:
16 December 2020 21:00:07
Attachments:
Meeting notes 2nd December 2020 planning meeting.docx
Workshop session - raw information.docx
Dates for NPSUD and Freshwater Package.docx
Dates for NPSUD and Freshwater Package.docx
Hi all – attached are:
Meeting notes – these are a record of the meeting discussion
The raw output from the butchers paper
A first cut at a timeline for NPSUD and FM work through to 2025 taking into account previous
timelines done by the HBA team, the GWRC Freshwater and other timeline, relooking at the
NPSUD and NPSFM for timing and allowing for timing that might be required for an FDS to
inform councils LTPs.
Actions from the meeting:
1. Agree to hold a definitions meeting in December 2020 –
organised for 21st December 2020.
2. Develop an initial version of timeline for NPSUD and Freshwater Package incorporating
timeline GWRC already have and timeline developed by HBA project team –
first cut
developed and attached.
3. NPSUD and Essential Freshwater Package requirements - all to make ourselves familiar with
these documents
Note that work has started on the most essential (timewise) elements – the HBA due June 2021
and the definitions.
Work will need to commence in early 2021 to determine in more detail the actual work and
more detailed timing for all the work identified in the timeline document. We are also going to
need to resource this up including having someone oversee the all the work and make sure all
the bits fit together. I am ok to keep running workshops in the short term but we will need to
transition this work to someone who has expertise in project/programme management and
understands the needs for the NPSUD and Freshwater Package more than me.
So:
1. Can you look at the draft timeline/dates for NPSUD and Freshwater Package
attached and the
way I have packaged these up and
give me comments back by Tuesday 26th January. You will
see there are some areas where I am looking for comment/need to understand connections.
2. Let me know if you have any views about how we resource this project up and particularly a
resource to oversee the wider scope of work.
3. And for those of you who could not attend on 2nd, let me know if you have any questions
Thanks
Kim
ATTENTION: This correspondence is confidential and intended for the named recipient(s)
only. If you are not the named recipient and receive this correspondence in error, you must
not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it and you should delete it from your
system and notify the sender immediately. Unless otherwise stated, any views or opinions
expressed are solely those of the author, and do not represent those of the organisation.
2 December 2020 – planners meeting notes Lower Hutt Events Centre
1.
Introductions and purpose of this group and workshop
Attendees:
• Sonya (Kainga Ora)
• Hamish (UHCC)
• Kashmir (HUD)
• Lauren (Horowhenua)
• Amy (Waka Kotahi)
• Alistair (GWRC)
• Fleur (GWRC)
• Marsha (WCC)
• Stewart (PCC)
• Emily (UHCC)
• Sherilyn (WCC)
• Sarah (KCDC)
• Adam (WCC)
• Joe (HCC)
• Julie (Kainga Ora)
• Jason (KCDC)
• Kim (WRGF)
• Jo (4sight)
Kim - Purpose of the meeting to recognise all the things that need to happen between now
and 2025 and package these up.
Marsha: HBA update discussion already underway.
2.
Overview of NPSUD and NPSFM requirements – to ensure all at the meeting have a
based level of requirements
NPSUD
Stewart:
• More detailed ELT report prepared by PCC on the NPSUD, offer to circulate.
• Summary of NPS-UD:
• Funding questions,
• Need regional leadership and coordination,
• Next WRGF will give effect to FDS.
• Timeframes – we were 18 month late last time for the HBA.
• Must be mindful that we cannot always meet government timeframes.
• HBA really important as evidence for Plimmerton Farm.
• NPS implementation – qualifying matters
• Plan enabled is just one part
• Need infrastructure subject to funding mechanisms
• Need to be realistic about what we can service
• Rapid transit stops – PCC have assumed all train stations on the Kāpiti line
1
• Walkability from a rapid transit stop criteria – does not take into account social
infrastructure. Walkable catchments from rapid transit stops, just one part of the picture.
I.e. Pukerua Bay – one dairy.
• Need joined up approach for next RLTP
Essential Freshwater Package
Fleur: NPS-FM and Essential Freshwater Package (EFP). New hierarchy – Te Mana o Te Wai
at the top, how to give effect to it.
Stewart: other NPS are a qualifying matter under the NPSUD
Fleur: Maxed out catchments. Wil make it dif erent for greenfield and particularly wetlands.
Stormwater and wastewater discharges and drinking water. P.3.5 – promote positive effects
avoid, remedy, or mitigate adverse effects.
Alistair: EFP:
• Maintain or improve water quality
• Set limits for contaminant discharges – important for urban development
• In a lot of urban catchments we are looking for a reduction
• Greenfield add to the contaminant load no matter how good or small. Need to minimise,
and addition of greenfield means reductions have to be found elsewhere
• Reductions can only be found from the existing urban footprint (i.e. building materials,
brownfields etc).
• Not all bad news – tension between greenfield and the NPS-UD but not an impossible
task.
• How many greenfields, what reductions and where those reductions can occur? Unknown.
• There wil be a transition and the regional council is taking a pragmatic approach.
Greenfields in train/planned for wil happen in general, that is probably the case. But how
much more? there wil be a cap.
• Some catchments wil be easier than others (potential reductions) GW taking a catchment
view (big)
• Whaitua – within these there are a number of catchments. In Porirua we are taking the two
arms of the Porirua harbour. Includes two river catchments.
Timeframe slide from GW
Fleur: Among other obligations, Plan Change1 to PNRP 2022. Whaitua. PRS full review 2023.
Alistair: different approach where rural towns, not setting limits for urban catchments because
the bulk of the contaminants are found elsewhere (Wairarapa). Kāpiti approach not determined
yet.
3.
Scoping work activity, timing, and resources – in groups. Workshop activity to
scope up the work and package it up into sensible sets of work. Confirming
interdependencies. Identifying resources
Workshop task: Package work required either by year or topic. I.e. definitions one package.
Over 4 years.
Table discussion:
• Mechanisms for grabbing opportunities to reduce contaminant loads
• Identifying where the opportunities are. Big transit projects are an opportunities
2
• 18 months to plan change for NPS-UD
• Walkable catchment - WCC first interpretation within the region. Definition criteria
approach to fit to different district circumstances
• Guidance from MfE
• Things in the RPS that are going to be useful
• FDS requirements
• RMA reform expected 1st half of 2021, enacted by end of 2021
• 3 waters reform also going on
• Infrastructure and funding mechanisms
Group discussion
Table 1 - Jason
• Not much time to agree things regionally, 18-month timeframe
• Need early answers and the same experts
• Early answers needed for rapid transit (all Wellington lines?) and walkable catchments
(room to allow each district to manoeuvre)
• Do we put agreements in the RPS or wait for MfE guidance?
Table 2 - Adam
• HBA nuances
• Population stats
• Combined effort in modelling
• FDS
• Definitions
o Rapid transit
o Planned (RLTP)
o Common set of qualifying matters
o Hearts and minds – politicians
o Experts we all use for consistency
o NPS-FM
o Mana Whenua input and resourcing
o Housing affordability and choice
Table 3 – Marsha
• Gaps:
o Defining development capacity
o Infrastructure
o Definitions of development capacity, both level of service and gap analysis - how
far are we from that.
o Investment, affordability and need
o Regional approach to district council development contributes (charging)
o Catchment limits
o Reinforcing employment, commercial land, gap analysis.
o Where you live, transport and work. Potential there
o Defining rapid transit
o Qualifying matters
o Feasibility under NPSUD
o Infill and uplift incentivising
o Insurance issues
o Inclusionary zoning
o How regionally does affordability fit
3
o Accessibility/adaptability (in terms of buildings, building for life) not much precedent
(definition)
Further discussion
• Do we try to have a regional approach to feasibility (i.e. PCC not much is feasible)?
• Get same economist to do the assessment?
• Identify who to use and who to use as peer reviewer
• Wil have to defend through Schedule 1 process for feasibility as well.
• To zone regardless up to 6 stories. How do you defend market feasibility for zoning? We
can have capacity above the market feasibility.
• Policy 3, rezone. But implementation tests proved feasible and infrastructure ready.
Robust S1 defence.
• City wide scale, not every site
• We have technically enabled now. Multi-unit on every site - PCC is already providing for
those outcomes but nothing is being built. Kāpiti apartments over commercial centres.
4.
Next steps - which of these need to be started now?
Discussion points
• HBA update (underway)
• Definitions/interpretation
• Infrastructure service needs (Standardising level of service and understanding the gap).
• Gap analysis (including soft/social infrastructure)
• Need sub regional approach as well. WCC/Kāpiti/PCC same transport corridor, WCC/PCC
water catchments connections
• Like that approach, where we are connected need for joined up effort. But we might
become connected over time
• RLTP takes it so far. One whole transport system, not one corridor over there. Still defined
in same way even if it looks like dif erent corridors
• 3 waters real distinction. Caution corridor only approach.
• Soft infrastructure and hard infrastructure (employment, schools, hospitals etc). Social
infrastructure is the true gap. Gap analysis should be started now.
• Work around regional approach to building insurance and incentivisation. Consistent
storey around medium density. That seems like a package of this as well. Al part of the
wider thing.
• HBA June 2021 (except regional HBA referred to in WRGF). Must do this by June 2021
to inform 2024 LTP. LTP work wil need to start in 2022.
• Joined timeframe useful. RPS draft changes before we can do our variations. If the
timeframes are not going to work can we talk to the minister? Can get agreement on that
(written) if we have an extension we can keep moving forward.
• Consistent approach wil put us in a strong position
• Makes sense for regional HBA but requires modelling for councils who have not previously
done an HBA.
• Definitions – when do these need to be finished? Before June 2021 – most likely
Feb/March 2021
• Good job of regional approach, probably some flexibility
• RLTP and RPTP – Feb. Frequency and planned improvements. Not just regional issue.
Need more consistent guidance. Amy/Waka Kotahi wil try to push along.
4
• Qualifying matter so important for HBA. Al interlinked. ‘Planned’ comes into walking
catchments. Walkable catchments and rapid transit also a priority.
• Feedback from Planning for Growth from some people are saying there is no rapid transit
anywhere (reliability)
• Need a collective understanding of needs to increase on what NPS-UD says and means.
Keep going back to development capacity reasonably expected to be realised. Really
important. We need a shared understanding of each section of the NPS-UD.
• MfE – areas of grey. Wait until clearly articulated? Good enough sensible best practise,
mindful of RMA reforms as well. Setting ourselves up. Tweaking to NPS, taking what is
developed here into the reform process. Important to have MfE at the Table.
• People at HUD and MfE working on guidance for implementation. They could come to
these workshops as well. Central government resources are available
Actions:
1. Agree to hold a definitions meeting in December 2020 – organised for 21st December 2020.
2. Develop an initial version of timeline for NPSUD and Freshwater Package incorporating
timeline GWRC already have and timeline developed by HBA project team – first cut
developed.
3. NPSUD and Essential Freshwater Package requirements - all to make ourselves familiar
with these document
5
Workshop session – Planning and Policy meeting 2nd December 2020
Table One: Things we need to work on together
Project
Includes
HBA
Tier 1: regional including Horowhenua
Population statistics mid 2021
Modelling x3 -early 2021. At different stages
Reference to: Feasible, enabled, realizable
FDS
Common definitions and approach
Rapid transit stop
Walkable catchment and methodology
Planned
Frequent, high capacity, separated, reliable
Qualifying matters – what are these?
Options for plan change
combined
Investment in transport and
Hutt line?
infrastructure to meet
Kapiti line?
Zoning approach to centres
RLTP
Hearts and minds
Communications and engagement with communities and
politicians
Common experts
Engagement materials e.g., what is medium density
Implementation of NPSFM
Greenfields
3 waters provisions
Offsets of contaminant land
Mana whenua input and
assistance
Affordability + housing choice+
affordable housing
Table Two:
What we need to do
Housing bottom lines
Updated HBA
Identifying wetlands
Prepare FDS
Application/relevance of freshwater package as a qualifying matter
Things we need to
Infrastructure as qualifying matter?
think about
Opportunities for alternative infrastructure funding
NPSUD plan enabled intensive developments vs NPSFM requirements
How to identify where opportunity for contaminants reduction
How to identify limits to greenfields (from water quality perspective)
Early answers?
Confirming rapid transit
Rapid transit line – all Wellington lines?
Defining/applying walkable catchments
Walkable catchments – 400/800 metres, using the isochrome tool
Agree on what we can agree on and what to leave discretion for local
circumstances to
Codify what we agree to in RPS? Or make MfE deliver guidance that
gives the criteria?
Table Three:
Project
Includes
Infrastructure and corridor –
Definition of “development capacity” level of service –>
land transport, 3 waters
undertake gap analysis -> advocate to government
Defining development capacity
Understand gap between investment need and affordability ->
what % is funded through development contributions?
Catchment limit identification
Define rapid transit and walkable catchment -> acknowledge
local differences -> access and inclusion -> accessibility
Regional consistency -planning
Regional approach to qualifying matters
Assessment of feasibility (regional consistency)
Regional approach - other
Regional approach to achieving/incentivising
infill/intensification uplift
Regional voice on building insurance (taller buildings)
Dates for NPSUD and Freshwater Package – FIRST DRAFT
Overview of requirements and timing for workshopping and discussion. Once we have agreed the attached then this can be put into a more
comprehensive project plan with start and end timings and interdependencies.
Item
Date due
Comment
Grouping
(see legend
below)
Agree regional definitions and approach to these
End February 2021
To align with WCC District Plan timetable
following Planning for Growth
Deadline for Tier 1 and 2 councils completing housing
31 July 2021
Tier 1 councils only
portion of HBAs (Policy 2)
Process underway
Notification of Non-Statutory Draft Plans
July 2021
HCC, WCC and UHCC
NPS-UD: GWRC to amend RPS to add housing bottom
July 2021
lines.
Intensification Plan change & Growth Strategy
August 2021
KCDC draft??
Expected timeframe for Tier 1 and 2 councils to add
As soon as practicable after publicly
housing bottom lines to plans
notifying HBA (above)
Expected timeframe for receiving letters from Tier 1, 2
As soon as identified
and 3 councils to minister if insufficient housing supply
identified
Development of freshwater modules for farm plans by
August 2021 (earliest) GWRC action
????
industry and others expected
Expected timeframe for Tier 1, 2 and 3 councils to publish August 2021
Councils may choose a reporting schedule
their annual NPS UD monitoring reports on market
that works best for their planning purposes
indicators
(e.g., report at the end of financial or
calendar years, but the first report )
Development of regional package to support
December 2021
Package to be agreed – matters raised to
NPSUD/Freshwater packages and implementation:
date on list
• Consistent communication and engagement eg
what is medium density
• Common experts
• Engagement materials
• Voice on building insurance (taller buildings)
pg. 1
FDS and related
HBA
Regional approach - other
Plan changes
Item
Date due
Comment
Grouping
(see legend
below)
Support iwi to complete a mana whenua driven spatial
January 2022
Al ows enough time to build any numbers
plan for incorporation into an updated WRGF/FDS. To
into the regional HBA.
include update on cultural mapping information
This is a project under the WRGF to
improve iwi input into the FDS
Deadline for Tier 1, 2 and 3 councils to remove minimum 20 February 2022
car park controls from plans (city and district councils)
Ruamāhanga, Te Awarua-o Porirua, Te Whanganui a
End December 2022
GWRC Plan change 1
Tara urban areas:
How long does this need to be done before
• Stormwater, wastewater
the 27 August 2022 deadline for council
• Water allocation
intensification plans?
• Stream reclamation
• Bottom lines/current state objectives Kāpiti Coast and
Is bottom lines same as baseline states as
Wairarapa Coast
in NPSFM
Deadline for Tier 1 and 2 councils to notify intensification 20 August 2022
HBA updates from here will include
plan changes
numbers from these plan changes
PCC – notify variation to plan
And review to establish what changes are needed to give
HCC, WCC and UHCC notification of plan
effect to the NPS-FM 2020 in relation to managing the
change
effects of urban development on the health and well-
being of waterbodies, freshwater ecosystems and
City and district councils will review their
receiving environments.
district plans and establish what changes
are needed to give effect to the NPS-FM
2020 in relation to managing the effects of
urban development on the health and well-
being of waterbodies, freshwater
ecosystems and receiving environments.
Amend RPS to enable intensified urban development
August 2022
GWRC action. How does this fit with item
above in terms of timing?
Support iwi to complete iwi management plans for
January 2023
Provides for 12 months from when iwi
incorporation into an updated Framework/FDS
spatial plan complete
pg. 2
FDS and related
HBA
Regional approach - other
Plan changes
Item
Date due
Comment
Grouping
(see legend
below)
PNRP and RPS must be fully online as ePlans in
April 2023
Assume this is correct for council DPs also?
accordance with National Planning Standards
Develop regional HBA including non-tier one councils
In time to inform 2024 Assumes can start in April 2022 when
(housing and business land)
long-term plan.
housing numbers for intensification plan
changes for tier one councils are available.
April 2023
Assume wil take 12 months.
Deadline for Tier 1 and 2 councils to deliver an FDS
In time to inform 2024 End June 2023 assumes allows five months
under the NPS-UD. To include updating of constraints
long-term plan.
to get FDS implications into LTPs and
mapping.
Infrastructure Strategies before audit occurs
June 2023
Draft LTP ready for audit (which includes implications of
November 2023
FDS)
RPS Full review
Late 2023
Is this timeframe begin or proposal out or
end?
Operative plan changes
Early 2024
HCC, WCC and UHCC
LTP consultation and finalisation (which includes
March – June 2024
implications of FDS)
Plan change 2 – GWRC:
31 December 2024
All NPS-FM changes to PNRP and RPS
• Everything else to give full effect to the NPS-FM
must be notified – does this item need its
• Ruamāhanga, Te Awarua-o Porirua, Te Whanganui a
own line?
Tara rural areas
• Al of Kāpiti and Wairarapa Coasts
Councils notify changes to regional policy
•
statements, regional plans, and district
plans to give effect to the new NPS-FM
2020. Changes to regional policy
statements and plans wil be progressed
using the freshwater planning process in
subpart 4 of the Resource Management Act
1991.
pg. 3
FDS and related
HBA
Regional approach - other
Plan changes
Item
Date due
Comment
Grouping
(see legend
below)
Regional plans – final changes?
By 2026, (or by 2027 Regional plans are in place, including the
if any extension is
rules needed to work towards long-term
granted)
objectives for ecosystem health and other
community values.
Infrastructure and corridor capacity – gap analysis – land
Need a definition of “development capacity”
transport, 3 waters, social infrastructure (as part of
related to the level of service –> undertake
defining development capacity?)
gap analysis -> then advocate to
government
Understand gap between investment need
and affordability -> what % is funded
through development contributions?
NPSFM – where do these fit? – which plan changes are these?
• Every regional council must develop long-term visions for freshwater in its region and include those long-term visions as objectives in its
regional policy statement. (Section3.3)
• Every regional council must make or change its regional policy statement to the extent needed to provide for the integrated management of
the effects of: (a) the use and development of land on freshwater; and (b) the use and development of land and freshwater on receiving
environments. (Section 3.5)
• Every territorial authority must include objectives, policies, and methods in its district plan to promote positive effects, and avoid, remedy, or
mitigate adverse effects (including cumulative effects), of urban development on the health and wel -being of water bodies, freshwater
ecosystems, and receiving environments. (Section 3.5)
pg. 4
FDS and related
HBA
Regional approach - other
Plan changes
Document Outline