CCRU and its subject matter experts were recently invited by the Ministry for the Environment (Mfe) to comment on the December 2017 Coastal Hazards publication as the Mfe are undertaking minor revisions and updating on their December 2017 report.

It is CCRUs’ view that feedback and engagement with all relevant parties throughout this process, particularly at this early stage, is essential. Accordingly, we thank MfE for giving us this opportunity to submit.

CCRU have been engaging with the Ministry for the Environment on Coastal Hazard views since CCRUs’ inception in 2015.

In December 2017, the Mfe released its publication “Coastal hazards and climate change – guidance for local governments”. This Guidance was developed as a starting point to support councils in managing and adapting to the increased coastal hazard risks posed by climate change and sea level rise.

.

CCRU is committed to supporting community engagement and consensual adaptation to the effects of climate change. As a community partner with Regenerate Christchurch in their South New Brighton and Southshore Project, as well as with Christchurch City Council for other coastal parts the City, this guidance is critical for us because it will inform both our Local Government colleagues as well as our communities.

You can read or Download the 2017 Mfe Guidance document here and view any supporting material.

Regenerate has recently released what they are referring to as their Baseline review of current information for the Southshore/ South Brighton area.

CCRU expressed strong concerns to Regenerate regarding this information prior to its release. Subsequent dialogue post release between CCRU and Regenerate have seen Regenerate agree to engage with us on their document.

Our commentary is the first part of that engagement (as a partner) in the Southshore/South New Brighton Community Engagement process. This review has been sent to Regenerate in draft form as, ideally, it requires further independent expert input.

Funding for this expert input is difficult for communities as they are most often under-resourced in an unequal partnership.

CCRU welcome comment and contact specifically from Subject matter experts who feel they maybe of assistance.

The section that has raised the most questions and conversation has been Part 4 Natural Hazards. Accordingly, this brief 'review1' mostly (but not exclusively) focuses on that part. This 'review2' is laid out thematically around what appear to be the main issues, but many are not about the underlying science, but instead about tone, clarity, interpretation of, and sometimes what seems like stretching facts.

The cumulative unintentional effect of the Regenerate Report style raises questions about the fitness for purpose of this report in its current form. However, relatively minor changes could transform this report into a very much more useful and effective community asset.

See the archive for the 5 Part Regenerate Report that CCRU is reviewing here

Information on the proposal for use of section 71 to amend the District Plan to provide a policy framework that supports the Residential Unit Overlay.

__

Articles written and received Sep 23 thru Oct 16, 2018

23/09 2018

Mayor tells Stuff the error was down to a mix-up during discussions while the plan was being drawn up in 2016. Resource-consent-crisis-caused-by-an-oversight-mayor-lianne-dalziel-says

7 OCT

Warwick Shaffer Deputy CCRU- 7 OCT

Update on the 'missing clause' and the s71 process that is being used to fix it. (Along with some personal observations)

The release of Judge Hansens letter confirmed that the district plan was not as the IHP (Independent Hearing Panel) intended. CCRU and community board members had long argued this but the CCC response was that the panel would have put it in if they wanted it in so it is as intended. A quite clearly farcical stance (IMO) but what can you do.

We were in the process of going around the CCC to get the Government and Regenerate to fix this when the letter broke.

The letter meant that CCC could no longer claim things were as intended. I think the uproar focused the minds of elected members including the mayor who to her credit has taken time to understand this.

If the council had alerted the panel to the omission before the panel was disbanded the problem could have been fixed with the stroke of a pen, but now it is a much harder proposition. The process selected is 'Section 71' s71 gives the government powers to change the district plan. (The council is not able to change its own plan at the moment)

s71 is a bit of a process in itself and has a number of 'stake holders' so potentially could be drawn out. However if all the stars align, it could also be done by Christmas.

To achieve this by Christmas real urgency is required and everyone involved will have to work together. If this is pulled off by Christmas it will be a real achievement for CCC - elected members and staff, Regenerate, the government, community and the other stake holders.

It is quite a tricky thing. As well as compacting s71 down to the min possible time frame there is going to be an attempt to 'verify' the original wording with some of the original panel members. This is delicate and has the potential to open a can of worms. The argument is that the original clause was not tested properly and that the minister and stake holders will want reassurance that what is being put in front of them is what the panel intended.

This may be valid but there is deep community suspicion and mistrust in council on this subject. 'Will they use this to nudge things a bit further in their direction' is a thought that runs through everyones minds.

The proof will be in the tasting but I have to say, so far so good. We are getting invited to the important meetings and it feels like we are being treated as a stake holder. We just have to wait to see if our input carries any weight. Community will not want to see anything that is less enabling than the current clause.

As I said going back to the panel to verify the wording is a delicate stage and potentially a real test for council - community collaboration. A good process here and a consensus outcome would be a real win, confidence building and potentially lay foundations for future.

The nuts and bolts of the process itself are as follows.

We are told that at the end of the process the Minister can only accept or reject the proposal. I have heard slightly contrary advice to this which should possibly be explored but for now I think it is best to assume it is a yes/no from the minister and so the proposal needs to be solid and well supported.

A key date is Oct 23. This is the next council meeting where councillors vote on the wording that will go to strategic partners.

Between now and Oct 23 that wording needs to be finalised which means going back to panel members (busy people) and asking them if the current wording/policy is as they would like it.

-------------------------------

The current wording:

In High Flood Hazard Management areas:

(a) provide for development for a residential unit on residentially zoned land where appropriate mitigation can be provided that protects people's safety, well-being and property; and

(b) in all other cases, avoid subdivision, use or development where it will increase the potential risk to people's safety, well- being and property

--------------------------------

The process so far, as I understand it is that a letter from council has gone to panel members asking for their views. (It would be good see what was sent/asked.)

The next step is a workshop on Thursday Oct 11 to workshop the feedback that has come from panel members. CCRU have been invited to this which is encouraging. If council and community can come out of this step with a consensus on the wording I think the biggest hurdle will have been jumped.

It is critical to the pre Christmas goal that the results of this workshop are back in time to make that Oct 23 council meeting.

Assuming that elected members accept the proposal on the 23rd it will go to the strategic partners for comment and support. (Selwyn District Council, Waimakariri District Council and Te Rūnanga o Ngai Tahu, along with the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) and Regenerate Christchurch.)

They are normally given 30 working days to respond, council is asking them to do it in 7 or by 1 November 2018

It will then return to council with any necessary amendments (another potentially risky point) made and given council approval will then be sent to the Minister. The Minister will invite public comment before making her decision.

My final comment is that this does need to be fixed, there is a clear miscarriage, but once fixed we still need to wait and see. In theory the change should force a total policy rethink but council policy people have been unrelenting in their efforts to stop building. They may simply look for new ways to enforce that policy.

I think this is accurate but if this needs tweaks or improvements let me know in the comments.

09 OCT-

Here is the Sarah Dawson letter that explains her amendments. It is an interesting read if you like to put your planners hat on.

To make this complete I think we need to see the letter the ccc sent to her asking for comment. (This has been requested)

Note that when she talks about the Councils proposed wording of the new clause in the letter it will be the wording we have now. The wording that was put to the panel in evidence. This is the starting point.

09 OCT

Here is the letter sent to Judge Hasson and Sarah Dawson by CCC requesting comment. To me they have played this with a pretty straight bat. - Warwick Shaffer Deputy Chair CCRU

Dear Judge Hasson and Sarah,

As advised by Mayor Lianne Dalziel, we wish to engage your services, as two former members of the Independent Hearings Panel that participated in decision 53, to provide advice on an amendment to the Christchurch City Council District Plan. Your advice will provide vital information and support to our communities, our strategic partners and to the Minister to assist in streamlining the Section 71 process. I have reattached the paper on the proposed process that went to Council on Thursday 27 September for your information. We are attempting to fast track this process to enable a change to be made prior to Christmas 2018.

This is not a re-litigation of your decision, however it would assist the process enormously if we received your advice on:

Whether the provisions of the District Plan give full effect to the Restricted Discretionary Activity status within the Residential Unit Overlay of the High Flood Management Area and whether additional policy is required to enable the decision to be appropriately supported;

If further policy is required, whether the original draft from the Council experts is an appropriate amendment to the policy and if not, whether any alternate provisions would better support the intent of your decision (noting the 153 Main Road, Redcliffs decision enclosed).

If you think it would be useful to hear from both council staff and representatives of the community through CCRU on options we can arrange appropriate meetings.

We are preparing a pack of relevant information to assist you including legal opinions, council papers and other information as background and will send that to you as soon as possible.

Thank you again for your willingness to assist in this process.

15 OCT

CCC live meeting item 3 15/10/2018 – draft section 71 proposal to amend district plan in relation to the Residential Unit overlay for consultation.

16 OCT – Stuff Dominic Harris

15 Oct 2018

District Plan change moves step closer

Councillors today approved the draft proposal to amend the District Plan in relation to the Residential Unit Overlay.

Today’s decision is another step in the process towards clarifying the policy required to support the Residential Unit Overlay in the District Plan.

The Council is working towards asking the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration, Dr Megan Woods, to change the District Plan, using her powers under section 71 of the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act.

The proposal approved today:

* Clarifies the policy needed to support the Residential Unit Overlay area where the risk of flooding is predominantly from future sea level rise.

* Permits people with vacant sites (where houses have been demolished since the earthquakes) to rebuild houses of a similar size and location to what was there, without the need for a resource consent.

The draft proposal will go immediately to Environment Canterbury, Selwyn District Council, Waimakariri District Council and Te Rūnanga o Ngai Tahu, along with the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and Regenerate Christchurch, for their feedback.

They have been asked to give their feedback within seven working days so the process can continue to progress as quickly as possible.

Assuming that their advice is provided in time, staff will bring a report to Council on 1 November seeking approval of the final proposal to be sent to the Minister and Regenerate Christchurch.

It is intended to submit the final proposal to the Minister in early November. She will invite public comments before making her decision on whether to accept or decline the proposal, and make the proposed changes to the District Plan.

15 OCT 2018

CCRU, SSRA,SBRA, Christchurch City Councilors, Community Board Members and Council staff attend workshop on RUO policy.

Last night the above-mentioned groups attended a constructive and well organised meeting to discuss the wording of the omitted policy in regard to the RUO and the section 71 process. There was general support for the wording and you can read CCRU feedback to CCC below. Similar support was also given to the CCC by the community boards and the SSRA.

CCRU raised several issues, these issues have been noted by CCC and have advised CCRU that staff have already started to work through them and will include responses and any necessary amendments in their final report to Council. This final report which is expected to be 8 Nov 2018 (i.e. after feedback from strategic partners, and then council staff finalise the s71 proposal).

The full CCC will discuss this at a City Council meeting on Monday. CCC have just published the agenda for Monday's meeting - it is public and can be found here >

Thank you for giving CCRU the opportunity to attend and participate in the policy drafting workshop 11th October 2018. From our observations the workshop was well run, well presented, and was an excellent example of collaboration between the CCC and community stakeholders.

We acknowledge the work that has gone into preparing and considering the wording for the draft policy and we are heartened by the additional efforts made to sensibly accommodate the replacement and repair of residential units under the proposed 5.4.6.1 Permitted activity- P2.

After consideration CCRU comments and feedback are as follows.

• CCRU support the Draft wording of policy 5.2.2.2.1 as presented below and at the meeting dated 11 October.

5.2.2.2.1 Policy – Flooding

[Changes to Decision 6 & 53 wording shown in bold (for draft policy provided during IHP hearings) and blue (for further changes proposed by Sarah Dawson)]

5.2.2.2.1 Policy – Flooding

a. …

b. In the High Flood Hazard Management Areas:

i. provide for development for a residential unit on residentially zoned land where the flooding risk is predominantly influenced by sea-level rise and where appropriate mitigation can be provided that protects people’s safety, well-being and property from unacceptable risk; and

ii. in all other cases, a) Avoid subdivision, use or development in the High Flood Hazard Management Area where it will increase the potential risk to people’s safety, wellbeing and property.

[c,d,e,f….]

• We request that “unacceptable risk” be further defined for clarity either in the definitions of the District plan or in another manner deemed suitable

• We request that ‘appropriate mitigation’ is also clarified or given direction in some manner

• We strongly support the below addition of the 5.4.6.1 permitted activity P2 as presented and request that you consider additional wording that will allow for access structures to be considered as being outside of calculations of the previously existing footprint, in order that replacement dwelling dimensions are not compromised by the need to safely access required raised floor levels.

• We ask that thought and consideration be given to allowing replacement of other buildings including commercial with a permitted activity clause similar to P2 within 5.4.6.1, to allow other buildings needed for the community to recover and thrive to be replaced as they were pre-earthquake. A similar Restricted Discretionary provision for new commercial activity may also be appropriate or alternatively investigate how this issue may be better interpreted and managed under the existing district plan rules.

Regards,

CCRU

Councillor David East has offered an apology to council staff for questioning their integrity and accusing them of tampering with Christchurch's district plan.

East backed down over his claim officials had removed a clause that would have helped residents in coastal areas rebuild and repair earthquake-damaged homes.

His apology came as councillors unanimously backed a proposal to change the district plan that will make such repairs easier, a move East described as a "momentous decision".

Now ratified by council, the proposed alteration will be sent to Christchurch Regeneration Minister Megan Woods to put to the public before deciding whether to sign it off – a move that could be made before Christmas.

A change to the plan would bring much-needed clarity to people in New Brighton, Southshore and Redcliffs who have endured needless resource consent battles and years of uncertainty about whether they can build new homes.

Coastal councillor David East has apologised to council staff for accusations of tampering with Christchurch's district plan.

Addressing his fellow councillors on Thursday, East offered a "personal apology" to people in his ward who have suffered "undue and unnecessary stress" because of the poorly-worded original policy.

He apologised for suggesting at a press conference in early September that staff had deliberately omitted a section of the district plan, saying the comments may have been seen as an "unjustified criticism that reflected negatively on the competency and integrity" of them or the council itself.

"I knew that prior to embarking on this campaign that I would be criticised for my actions.

"However, first and foremost … I am accountable to the public for my actions and the manner in which I carry out my responsibilities in representing them."

East thanked community representatives for pursuing "accountability and justice" for residents and helping "right what they consider was a serious wrongdoing".

The amendments to the district plan will allow the building of homes on residentially-zoned land where the risk from flooding is predominantly from long-term sea level rise.

Almost 1500 sites sit within this coastal area, including 74 empty sites where people can build.

The current plan urges avoiding new development, but changes to the legislation would allow it, provided it still involves the necessary mitigation against flooding.

(photo spin360.co.nz) The end is in sight for residents of coastal Christchurch who have faced a long and frustrating battle to rebuild and repair earthquake-damaged homes.

Another amendment means people wanting to rebuild properties demolished after the earthquakes can do so without the need for resource consents, provided they meet certain requirements.

Thanking staff for their efforts to draft changes so quickly, mayor Lianne Dalziel said: "The proposal that we have prepared provides clarity over what building activity can occur in flood-prone coastal areas of the city and should bring an end to the confusion over the planning rules and how they apply.

"There will still be limitations on what can be built in these locations due to the potential impact of hazards, but this change will provide greater clarity to people."

Lynda Burdekin, who has had a lengthy battle to rebuild her Southshore home, believes the proposal offers "hope and optimism" for residents.

Cr Yani Johanson said the issue had highlighted the need for flexibility in decision-making after major events such as the earthquakes. The collaborative efforts between the council and the community in recent months were a "model" when discussing planning matters in the future.

Cr Sara Templeton cautioned that more restrictive building rules could be brought in as coastal hazards are re-examined in future incarnations of the district plan as the impacts of climate disruption and sea level rise become clearer.

"Let us enable those few who have struggled to rebuild their homes and their lives following the earthquakes to do so, and let's get on with the incredibly important work of engaging with our communities on how we adapt to our changing environment."

First priority is relief for beleaguered residents Mike Yardley 05:00, Sep 11 2018

East's dramatic press conference last week has served its purpose. It has forced the council's hand to front up to the botch-up over the "omitted policy" and commit to fixing it. Without wishing to fry your head with technical planning parlance, the "policy" gives life to the "rule".

Victory for residents as council promises inquiry into coastal consents fiasco Dominic Harris, 22:09, Sep 12 2018

Christchurch mayor Lianne Dalziel has vowed to hold an independent inquiry into why a vital clause that would have made it easier to build houses in coastal communities was missed out of the city's district plan.

Dalziel promised to "pull out the stops" to ensure the legislation is fixed and said the city council would take urgent action to get to the bottom of why it was overlooked in the first place.

21 Sep 2018 Options for removing the confusion in the District Plan about what building activity can occur in flood-prone coastal areas will be considered by Christchurch City Council next week.

What’s the issue with the District Plan?

How did the confusion arise?

Who was responsible for writing the Independent Hearing Panel’s decision?

How many properties are affected?

Has the confusion prevented people from building?

How do I know if a property is within one of these areas?

'Fix it honestly, fix it fast' - campaigners ask PM to help solve coastal consents row Dominic Harris, 05:00, Sep 22 2018

Campaigners fighting for a solution to the resource consents crisis in coastal Christchurch have issued a stern challenge to the prime minister, MP's and the city's leaders – "fix it properly, fix it honestly, fix it fast".

Dominic Harris 05:00, Sep 22 2018

The clause is indeed the root of the problem – 24 words that were left out of Christchurch's new district plan when it came into effect in December.

Buried in a chapter on natural hazards was meant to be a key instruction: In high flood hazard management areas, "provide for development for a residential unit on residentially zoned land where appropriate mitigation can be provided that protects people's safety, wellbeing and property".

Those three lines had a simple purpose – to give leeway to people in specific coastal areas previously deemed at risk of flooding from river surges, so they could build or extend homes.

Over a considerable period, there have been multiple motions, approaches, and requests put forward by CCRU and many parties including a motivated but exhausted community. All with the purpose of trying to fix this problem…

…to progress updating the Council’s district plan using section 71 powers under the regeneration act to reinstate the Residential Unit Overlay clause 5.2.2.1(a) as presented to the Independent Hearing Panel in original evidence by the Council.

We are petitioning Parliament for assistance to fix this, to help ensure there is a clear and consistent assessment pathway that does not continue to unfairly disadvantage residents in the RUO.

Having had no formal response from

MPs Ruth Dyson, Poto Williams, Minister Megan Woods, Regenerate Christchurch, senior CCC consent, planning and policy teams staff

this correspondence is further to the letter sent by CCRU at the end of July 2018, and to once again ask for your assistance with resolving the issues surrounding the RUO (Residential Unit Overlay) contained within the Operative Christchurch District Plan. Specifically:

• the reinstatement of Overlay clause 5.2.2.1(a) as presented to the Independent Hearing Panel in the original draft by the Council, and • the circumstances that led to the omission of the overlay clause 5.2.2.1(a) from the final IHP published plan.

On 29 June 2018 CCRU called a meeting with local MP’s to discuss our concern regarding the omitted enabling clause within the residential unit overlay policy. CCRU pointed out the facts relating to the issue and the effects it was having on the community: we asked for assistance in finding the most appropriate method for a swift correction.

A meeting held between CCRU and CCC consent and policy staff saw CCRU again convey the issue at hand. At this meeting CCRU invited CCC to partner with them in approaching Regenerate Christchurch and the Minister for a resolution plan.

Additionally, CCRU met with Regenerate Christchurch to ask for their assistance with progressing a reinstatement of the clause using s71 of the Regenerate Christchurch Act, suggesting that this may be an appropriate opportunity for use of the Act, as it fulfilled the requirements of s65 of the Act, i.e. that:

• necessary - for social and emotional wellbeing, and • preferable - to expedite and avoid delays.

At the time, those involved in the meetings were waiting for the outcome of a related RMA hearing, that would hopefully give some direction on interpretation of the RUO to the CCC. CCRU pointed out that while the RMA hearing outcome would be useful it would not set a precedent and therefore was not an appropriate “fix” to the issue.

When released, the RMA decision RMA/2017/1413 153 Main Road Redcliffs, supported the stance of CCRU, in that the operative plan had a gap that had resulted in a disconnect between the avoidance policy and the RUO, causing it to be incorrectly applied. In support of this view the panel stated the following:

“…we consider the strict application of “avoid”, in the King Salmon sense to the RUO, would render the RUO redundant. Realistically, any new (and indeed many replacement), dwellings will increase potential risk. In our view, the application of a strict avoidance would result in an absurdity and would move perilously close to a prohibition…”

In response to the RMA decision, CCRU sent a letter dated 30 August 2018 to local MPs and Minister Wood, CCC and Regenerate Christchurch requesting that as…

“…concerned local representatives of your constituents, you offer support in remedying the disconnect by the way of utilizing s71 of the Regenerate Christchurch Act. This is to ensure that there is a clear and consistent assessment pathway that does not continue to unfairly disadvantage residents in the RUO…”.

To date, CCRU have not received any response regarding the progress of these requests. In a further attempt to gain assistance, CCRU sent correspondence requesting those community boards in the areas affected by the RUO to…

“…write to Members of Parliament Poto Williams and Ruth Dyson to progress updating the Council’s district plan using section 71 powers under the regeneration act to reinstate the Residential Unit Overlay clause 5.2.2.1(a) as presented to the Independent Hearing Panel in original evidence by the Council...”

This correspondence was tabled, resolved and carried as evident in both sets of board minutes:

Coastal Burwood Community Board on 20 August 2018 and the Linwood Central Heathcote Community Board on 3 September 2018. Both boards then sent letters to Ruth Dyson and Poto Williams asking for their assistance in resolving this issue.

Also, on Monday 3 September 2018 Christchurch City Councillor David East released a letter from the Hon. Sir John Hansen, Chair of the IHP. He confirmed the RUO was not being applied by CCC as intended by the IHP. Further, that it was an “obvious oversight” and stated:

“…if this matter had been bought to our attention we would have certainly added the policy back into the plan as a minor correction...”

Sir John also offered the following:

“…I would strongly support the use of s71 to reintroduce the policy into the relevant portion of the District Plan. It would correct an obvious oversight…”

After the release of this letter and the additional issues that arose from its release, two well attended community meetings were held. One in New Brighton on 11 September 2018 and the other in Redcliffs Monks Bay Area the following day.

At both meetings several motions were moved and passed. One of those motions requested CCRU to write, on behalf of those attending, advising the Government that the attendees of the meeting (of which there were over 300) fully supported the efforts and endeavours of their representatives and requested an independent inquiry into how and why the error occurred. The motion also asked the Government to utilise s71 of the Regenerate Christchurch Act to reinstate the relevant clause as intended by the panel. This letter serves to satisfy that motion. [attached herewith a copy of the full set of motions presented and carried at the Community Meetings].

Both the Christchurch Mayor and CCC CEO attended both meetings. At the New Brighton meeting the Mayor made the following promises (sic, from recording):

“…I've heard two really important messages here tonight. And that is, fix the problem first and we are absolutely committed to doing that. There's a notice of motion on the council agenda” [appears below] “for Thursday asking for all stops to be pulled out essentially to get the advice we need for the mechanism of fixing the problem. Issue number two relates to finding out how this happened, but I want to find out how this has happened.

I've already raised it with the minister to give her a bit of a background, a bit of a heads up about what we might come with. Section 71 is one mechanism, but you have to get all of significant partners to sign off on it, but if I'm right, and there is a potential to use the Order in Council that's there at the moment, then I would ask her whether we could correct, in retrospect, something that was incorrect when the plan was decided…”

Supporting the Mayor’s declaration, on 13 September 2013 the following Notice of Motion was carried at the CCC meeting:

High Flood Hazard Management area policy

1. That Council notes that the Linwood-Central-Heathcote and Coastal-Burwood Community Boards held a joint briefing following concerns regarding the High Flood Hazard Management area policy in the District Plan.

2. That Council notes that the Mayor has asked staff to provide advice as to options for resolving the issue that has been raised in relation to the Independent Hearings Panel decision on the District Plan.

3. That Council request urgency be accorded the matter so that the District Plan can be amended to reflect the intention of the Independent Hearings Panel as soon as possible

CCRU has always felt that the omission of the policy that enabled building in the Residential Unit Overlay from the District Plan was an oversight and John Hansen’s letter confirms that. However, the CCC position has been that the current Plan is as the panel intended. The Mayor’s comments above indicate there now appears to be a desire to fix this issue, with some urgency.

While we have maintained a view that the use of s71 would be a possible approach, recent discussion has arisen that other options, including a Members Bill, may be alternatives. As these methods are outside the realm of the CCC there is no doubt the CCC will need guidance and assistance from the Government to find the most appropriate path to resolution in the timeliest manner.

CCRU have a long history with this issue and were involved in the original IHP. Evident from the chronology in this letter, we have spent considerable time working with local MP's, Councillors, Community Boards and Regenerate Christchurch to highlight this issue and find a solution.

Because of this long-standing involvement, CCRU has good insight into the emotional climate within these communities. It would be fair to say that this RUO affair and Council’s treatment of its elected representatives has impacted deeply on residents and has resulted in (yet again) deep mistrust: this is a blight on the trust required to engage in the Regenerate Christchurch led Community Engagement process. They have little appetite for further lack of transparency, drawn out internal council processes, silence, and closed-door meetings.

CCRU’s understanding of the outcome of the Community Engagement Process and the implications of the Zero Carbon Bill is that Communities and Councils must go forward together in a transformed and much more open and trusting relationship.

CCRU remains committed to the community engagement process and, such a future where consensual and informed adaptation can occur. We hope that your assistance on this will allow the Community to see such a future, rather than this past.

CCRU therefore strongly recommend, that clear and urgent communication is provided to the community regarding:

• Confirmation of the correct and most appropriate process that will be used to remedy this issue. • A timetable for the reinsertion of the clause • Report back mechanism so the community is aware of where this issue is on the timeline of resolution

And on the omission itself:

• A Timetable for the establishment of an independent hearing to investigate how the omission occurred and the circumstances surrounding the omission. • The appointment of the most appropriate person to head the hearing be agreed on by stakeholder not appointed solely by the CCC

CCRU are keenly aware that issues presented to an independent hearing will be significantly complex and will require a chair that has extensive legal, RMA and hearing panel knowledge. Possibly, local knowledge would also be an advantage. With that in mind it has been suggested to CCRU that Pru Stevens QC would be ideal given her:

• Specialisation in RMA matters; • Familiarity with the IHP District Plan process; and, • Complete independence of all the parties.

In summary

Over a considerable period, there have been multiple motions, approaches, and requests put forward by CCRU and many parties including a motivated but exhausted community. All with the purpose of trying to fix this problem.

We are asking for your assistance to fix this. Fix it properly. Fix it honestly. Fix it fast.

Help ensure that there is a clear and consistent assessment pathway that does not continue to unfairly disadvantage residents in the RUO.

Help the affected communities and the greater city of Christchurch, who have shown much interest in this issue, understand how and why this error occurred via a truly independent review.

I look forward to hearing back from you.

Best wishes, Simon (CCRU, Chair)

Simon Watts Visiting Professor of Biogeochemistry Department of Chemistry and NERI, NUS Southshore, Christchurch, 8062 New Zealand

+64 21 859 270 (NZ) +65 9151 2716 (SGP) +44 7958 028187 (UK)

Skype: simonfranciswatts Email: sfwatts@hotmail.com

Further information and attachments to this letter:

The above letter in PDF: Link to video and transcript of Mayor Dalziel speaking at Community Meeting 11 Sep 2018CCRU website and archive of relevant information to this matter.

“Eastgate” report, the public meetings in Christchurch Sep 11/12, 2018

More than 300 people attended the “Eastgate” public meeting in New Brighton on Tuesday and less on Wednesday at Redcliffs, in Christchurch. There were two councillors present, several community board members from across the city, the media, mayor Lianne Dalziel and city CEO Dr Karleen Edwards as well as half a dozen community residents groups.

At New Brighton it was standing room only.

Sir Tipene O’Regan was present by way of a letter of support which was read out, saying the elected representatives under Code of Conduct disciplinary action by Council had “Properly stood up to Council bureaucracy…as they should…(against) imperious sultans who seem to have misused their authority…”

There were several speakers who were all to the point. (view original article by JS)

Cr David East…

outlined the main issues as he saw them and explained why he’d gone public. He said the “alleged tampering had heavily impacted local residents…denying residents their legal rights …and the economic loss (to them) could run in to the millions.”

He said they’d had many meetings over many many months with Council but go nowhere. ”A policy of deny, defer, delay!” He’d therefore raised his concerns with the Office of the Prime Minister and the Local Govt Minister and asked for an enquiry; an independent investigation to establish the “reliability of the process and of the actions of the officials involved with …Decision 53.”

Cr David East and Sir John Hansen (IHP) had several correspondences regarding the “onerous” conditions of the District Plan and its effect on locals.

Hansen outlined the steps taken to arrive at Decision 53. There had been a minute to Council from the IHP to draw up new maps and effectively be the IHP’s drafting body, despite CCC being opposed to the changes and/or that function. However it was done. The IHP still concluded the Plan was “onerous” and issued 53 granting relief by way of an RDA.

The RDA rule was in the Plan but the policy was omitted. Other changes and corrections were dealt with by Council as the “drafting body” for IHP but at no time was the omitted policy addressed.

Cr East likened that to a Law Clerk changing a Judge’s decision when drafting it up, because they did not personally like the Judge’s decision.

East said there had been a clear undermining of due process during the review of the Plan. There was also a clear statement from staff of their complicity, which came to attention through the community board.

East and his colleagues primary objective was to reinstate the missing clause.

Kim Money Chairman of Coastal-Burwood Community Board…

said they all wanted “Resolution and Restitution…that it was an issue that had brought huge trauma to many families.”

“We’ve brought this out into the public arena because it is unjust.”

Tim Sintes, Deputy Chair C&B Community Board…

“We’ve gone to Council…It’s so wrong” (people not getting their consents after paying the Council thousands of dollars applying). “Please fix it! Stop making our job (as Community Board members) so hard!”

He expressed his frustration that residents came to them expecting help, but they felt stonewalled and hindered at Council process level.

There was huge applause from the 300 strong crowd at New Brighton when he asked, “have we done the right thing?” (going public, for which they are now under disciplinary proceedings).

“The Rules are impossible to get round. It’s criminal!”

Darrell Latham, Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board…

wanted to send a clear message to City Hall that they had a “tiger by the trail.” He called the issue “Red zoning by stealth” via the Residential Overlay; that it had caused “considerable strain and stress” on all of them (East, Money, Sintes, Latham). “This issue is a couple of years old. It is finally being heard.”

He outlined that residents had wished to remain anonymous to not prejudice their negotiations with Council as applicants, so they were relying on their elected representatives to be their public voice.

Latham criticised Minister Woods for praising the heart of the city was being restored with advancement on the Cathedral rebuild, but said, “Time for the Minister to return the heart back in to the coastal suburbs using s.71.”

He said their collective second priority was that this must never happen again. “We don’t want to be Weapons of Destruction but a force for good.”

Warwick Schaffer NZ Coastal Residents Forum and local residents group…

explained the details of the Clause, the Rule and Policy, put up a map of the (red zone) Residential Overlay and explained the consents restrictions on locals was due to the Coastal Hazards Policy (CHP). Essentially that is the risk of future flooding due to climate change. There was no present risk, and none of it related to the earthquakes, so he felt eastern suburbs were being unduly prejudiced in the Plan. They had submitted that future building in the east should not be restricted.

The IHP of three High Court judges agreed.

The Council favoured a ban on all future building inside the Residential Overlay because of this risk of climate change flooding. As the drafting body of IHP the IHP holds that Council was obliged to follow IHP’s instructions.

Mr Schaffer put up a slide that showed the initial submissions which contained the policy, and then the final submission by Council which omitted it altogether and reworded a clause at variance with the policy. Schaffer said the policy was “not just deleted but was rewritten.” If true, that goes beyond some sort of simple clerical typo or error but deliberate “tampering” as alleged by Cr East.

The outcome was “a void” and “no provision for development” in the east.

The critical point is that residents having paid $25k or so for consents, Planners when reviewing their applications would see a void.

“More digging in to this is required. We need to fix it now before we go into who did what. S. 71 is a good option.”

Unfortunately under law, the District Plan is now locked and Council cannot change it off its own bat. The mayor made much of this point, blaming the “previous government” three times on this point. The process is they have to go to the Minister and seek change under a s.71 (the same as applied to variations over the moving of Redcliffs School also in the area).

The eastern members said the issue was “in the staff” and they needed elected members (Councillors, local MPs, community board members) to step in and help them.

Three Affected Members of the Public…

A valuable insight was three speeches from affected locals.

A member of the Pier and Foreshore Society said they were all “Undie Supported by Council” and had hung 300 undies on the Brighton pier.

He said his family could not extend. They’d bought in 2016, got geo reports, engineers’ reports, architects’ reports and there were absolutely no red flags. None from Council either. They had to vary their plans under direction from Council at more expense, but then found they were declined consent in contradiction to all their earlier advice. Cost: $8000 out of pocket.

People had left the area because they could not expand, say to address a growing family, so left the area.

An almost Retired Mum…

cannot insure their eastern house in the Red Zone so she and her husband bought a Red Zone house and section next door for $90k as security in case their home burned down.

When buying there were no issues up to August 2017 via lawyers’ due diligence, no issues with the bank processes of analysis of risk who loaned them money to buy, no issues with a Master Builder. Council imposed certain foundational stipulations which upped their application costs and they lodged a consent application Feb 2018.

They were advised under s.37 they needed a further Resource Consent. Numerous further Geo Tech reports were added but they are advised under the current regime they are unlikely to be granted a building consent under the Plan. Cost out of pocket” $27,749.80c almost 1/3 the value of their property (for nothing).

“Almost Retired Mum” said the issue was supposedly about the future risk of rising oceans not whether you can build or not, locally. ‘We have a consent but cannot build and are still being charged rates against money we’ve borrowed to buy and build.’

“I want Council to have an open, honest and transparent communication process” (when people are buying property to build or vary).

Father of Young Family…

Said his issues were identical, his costs were: $26,000 out of pocket.

There were robust questions from the floor and mayor Dalziel addressed several of these, as did the CEO over the Code of Conduct issues, which grated with many of the public present. There is to be an informal meeting this Thursday to see if the parties can address that issue alone, in isolation and find a positive way forward.

There was a mixed response to some of the mayor’s answers and several speakers, including elected members, got up and contradicted statements she had made (particularly regarding her timing awareness of the issue).

Questions…

A representative of the South Brighton Residents Assc said the public needed protection, by the Council, against $10,000 insurance raises alongside no ability to build or vary.

A drafter of a motion put to the meeting in support of the eastern elected members said s.15 of the Local Govt. Act unbound elected members from onerous Codes of Conduct and gagging orders, in that they had an elected role to contradict Council if that was in the interests of their residents.

The Mayor

The mayor has to be given credit for attending, as does the CEO, and at first never intended to speak, just to listen, but was specifically asked to by the public to respond.

She gave an undertaking to immediately fix the problem as best Council could, she supported an enquiry to find out how all this happened, she spoke of a Thursday meeting in Council this week to address the issue, and suggested an Order in Council might be the best way forward, to “correct” the Plan rather than amend it; A s.71 would take longer. Ms Dalziel said she’d undertaken significant personal research on this, and spoken to the Minister of Local Government.

The CEO did not answer questions about the Code of Conduct proceedings retreating behind process when asked about details by the public.