EVIDENCE OF J M VAN DER WAL IN SUPPORT OF A SUBMISSION ON STAGE 2 OF THE PROPOSED CHRISTCHURCH REPLACEMENT DISTRICT PLAN

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL In the matter of the First Schedule the Resource Management Act 1991 And In the matter of the Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 EVIDENCE OF J M VAN DER WAL IN SUPPORT OF A SUBMISSION ON STAGE 2 OF THE PROPOSED CHRISTCHURCH REPLACEMENT DISTRICT PLAN 26 August 2015 Hans van der Wal 8 Glas Brae Governors Bay Lyttelton 8971 Phone Hansvdwal@yahoo.com

2 1 My full name is Johannes Michael van der Wal. I reside at 8 Glas Brae, Governors Bay, which I jointly own with my spouse, Mare-Jeanette van der Wal. I am a resource management solicitor, employed as Special Counsel by Duncan Cotterill. 2 I provide this brief of evidence in support of my submission. I am aware that although I have experience in plan preparation, gained in my employment with local government bodies prior to being admitted as a solicitor, I am unable to provide expert evidence in accordance with the requirements of the Consolidated Environment Court Practice Note, as I have an interest in the outcome of these proceedings. 3 I restrict my evidence exclusively to evidence of fact. In this brief of evidence I provide: Rebuttal of factual elements in the evidence in chief of Ms Sarah Oliver; A brief description of the land to which the submission applies; A copy of the decision report granting land use consent for the construction of the dwelling on the rural portion of the site; An extract from the consultant planner s s42a report to the Council Panel hearing that application. Rebuttal of Evidence of Ms Sarah Oliver 4 Appendix B to Ms Oliver s Evidence in Chief includes the following statement about 8 Glas Brae: The area that the submitter wishes to be rezoned is partly within Rockfall Hazard Management Area. This is incorrect. Schedule 7 to the Panel s Decision 6, dated 17 July 2015 includes the following record of a decision on specific relief sought: 1107: Van der Wal, 8 Glas Brae, Governors Bay Remove RFMA1 in accordance with Dr Wright Supplementary Evidence dated 16 March 2015 Figure 1. 5 Ms Oliver also states that I consider that the request is contrary to Strategic Direction Objective 3.3.7(c), which only provides for urban activities within existing urban areas and Greenfield Priority Areas under the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement Chapter 6, Map A. This is not a matter in which I am qualified to give an expert opinion to counter Ms Oliver s view from a planning technical point of view However, it does also depend _1 1

3 strongly on an issue of the correct legal interpretation of that Objective, which I shall address in my opening legal submissions. 6 Ms Oliver s evidence provides no further assessment of the appropriateness of relief sought against the wider objectives and policies. Site Description 7 The site is one of two located partially in an unusual wedge-shaped intrusion of the rural zone into the Small Settlement zone. It is accessed by way of a right of way from Governors Bay. It is located at the end of the right of way, which is made up of individually owned access strips with mutual access easements for all owners of properties that gain access via it. 8 Vehicles accessing the subject site via the right of way will pass the sites of the opposing submitters. 9 The main portion of the site, excluding the access strip, is approximately 2,600m 2. The dwelling is located on the top portion of the site. A covenant in favour of the Christchurch City Council is registered against the title restricting the site to a maximum of one dwelling. 10 The current activity status of subdividing the lot is non-complying. If the relief sought were granted that would no longer be the case, as a subdivision would comply with the minimum lot size requirements for the Small Settlement zone. 11 The current owners of the site (my spouse and I) have no intention of subdividing the site. However, it is accepted that this provides no reassurance should the site be rezoned and then sold. While there are no plans to sell the site in the foreseeable future, there is no ability to guarantee that that will never change. 12 Attached as Annexures 1A and 1B to this brief are extracts from the Canterburymaps site showing the site s general layout, zoning and location. Land Use Consent Decision Report 13 Attached as Annexure 2 to this brief is a copy of the decision report granting land use consent to construct a dwelling on the rurally zoned portion of the site. Paragraphs 38 to 48 inclusive provide factual background relevant to the current submission _1 2

4 Extract from s42a Report 14 Attached as Annexure 3 is an extract from the s42a report of the consultant planner, Mr Dean Chrystal. Paragraphs provide a helpful insight into the likely background of the zone boundary and the actual effects on urban form. Dated 26 August 2015 J M van der Wal _1 3

5 ANNEXURE 1A ANNEXURE 1B

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16