BEFORE THE CHRISTCHURCH REPLACEMENT DISTRICT PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL

Transcription

1 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 Central City (Stage 3) hearing STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF ANDREW FARQUHARSON MILNE ON BEHALF OF CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL CENTRAL CITY TRANSPORT REZONINGS 16 DECEMBER 2015 Barristers & Solicitors J G Winchester / S J Scott / C J McCallum Telephone: Facsimile: sarah.scott@simpsongrierson.com PO Box 874 SOLICITORS CHRISTCHURCH 8140

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION SCOPE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SITE SPECIFIC ZONING REQUESTS... 2

3 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 My full name is Andrew Farquharson Milne. I hold the position of Senior Transportation Planner at Christchurch City Council (Council). I have held this position since April I am a Chartered Professional Engineer (CPEng) registered under the Chartered Professional Engineers New Zealand Act This qualification means I am reviewed every five years by the registration authority and deemed competent to practice in my area of expertise. 1.3 My qualifications also include a Master of Science Degree in Transportation Planning and Management from Westminster University in London, and a Bachelor of Engineering Degree (Honours) in Civil and Transportation Engineering from Napier University in Edinburgh. I am also a Member of the Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand. 1.4 As part of my role at the Council, I have been asked to provide evidence on transportation issues in relation to site specific rezoning submissions that relate to sites within the Central City. 1.5 I have provided written and oral evidence at the hearings on the following proposals of the proposed Replacement District Plan (prdp): (a) Commercial and Industrial Proposals - Stage 1; 1 (b) Residential Proposal - Stage 2; 2 (c) Commercial and Industrial Proposals - Stage 2; 3 (d) Subdivision Proposal - Stage 2; 4 and (e) New Neighbourhood Zones Stage 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 1 Evidence in Chief dated 14 April 2015; rebuttal evidence dated 4 May 2015; gave evidence at the hearing on 12 May Evidence in Chief dated 19 August 2015; gave evidence at the hearing on 16 September Evidence in Chief dated 3 September 2015, rebuttal evidence dates 25 September 2015, 1 October 2015; gave evidence at the hearing 5 October Evidence in Chief dated 6 October Evidence in Chief dated 8 December

4 within my area of expertise, except where I state that I am relying on the evidence of another person. The Council, as my employer, has agreed to me giving expert evidence on its behalf in accordance with my duties under the Code of Conduct. 1.7 The key document I have used, or referred to, in forming my views while preparing this brief of evidence is the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan, An Accessible City - October 2013 (CCRP). 2. SCOPE 2.1 My evidence addresses the transport issues arising from the site specific rezoning submissions sought within the Central City. 2.2 I have taken a view on each of the individual site specific submissions as to whether I oppose the relief sought in terms of transportation effects, or whether I do not oppose the relief sought. 3. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3.1 In my assessment of the potential transport effects of the Central City zoning requests. The majority of the rezonings sought reflect existing use of the site, and therefore I do not oppose those particular submissions. For example several zoning requests simply seek to remove split zonings or seek to have historical activities on whole or part of their sites recognised through appropriate zoning. I find also that in other requests there are no discernible traffic changes anticipated. With the exception of the sites associated with the Casino request, I find that potential traffic effects are unlikely to be significant based on the small size of the subject sites. 4. SITE SPECIFIC ZONING REQUESTS # Dublin Street Commercial Freeholds Ltd 4.1 The subject site has a notified zoning of Central City Residential (CCR) and Central City Business (CCB). The submitter seeks that the CCB zone boundary be aligned with the extent of the building located at 4 Dublin Street but encroaching into 6 Dublin Street to the north of 4 Dublin Street, so that the 2

5 commercial building is entirely within the CCB zone. The extent of land that the submitter seeks to be zoned CCB is small. Given the zoning request reflects the existing use on the site, I do not anticipate any significant changes in trip generation. Therefore, from a transport perspective, I do not oppose the zoning request. # Durham Street and including 61 Peterborough Street Christchurch Casinos Ltd 4.2 The submitter, Christchurch Casinos seeks a zone change from Central City Mixed Use (CCMU) to CCB thus extending CCB (0.374ha) to the east such that it be defined by Durham Street, thereby incorporating the sites at 61 Peterborough Street and Durham Streets. From a transport perspective there is no discernible difference between these zones in terms of potential trip generation. I therefore do not oppose the zoning request from a transport perspective. # Durham Street and Salisbury Street Christchurch Casinos Ltd 4.3 Christchurch Casinos seeks a zone change of 61 Peterborough Street and Durham Street from CCR to CCB. The Durham Street properties are vacant, and there are apartments on the Salisbury Street properties. The subject site is 0.63ha in size and not in the submitters' ownership. In seeking to zone the subject sites to CCB, the site footprint, in combination with 61 Peterborough Street and Durham Street, has the potential to accommodate a significantly sized multi-level, development. The potential scale of development within the combined sites is such that it may be considered a high trip generator. 4.4 The CCB rules include an exemption from assessment under the high traffic generator rule (this exemption came through the CCRP). The combined use of the subject sites for commercial use was not contemplated within the ACC CAST model. There is no ability to assess the traffic effects of development of the site, once the site is rezoned as requested. Therefore, in my view, there is a risk that such development has the potential to affect the efficiency and safety of the adjacent transport network. 3

6 4.5 In the absence of any assessment of the transport implications of the zoning request, I oppose the zoning request from a transport perspective. # Salisbury Street Trophy Victoria Ltd # Salisbury Street Kilmore Investments 4.6 Resource consent RMA provides for a mixed office/retail/accommodation complex and was granted in July The consented site includes 47 and 49 Salisbury Street, as well as 376 Montreal Street. The zoning request consequently seeks to eliminate a split zoning that arises from the comprehensive development of all three addresses and seeks to have the whole site recognised as CCB. As the rezoning reflects a consented use, there are no transport issues arising from the zoning request and I therefore do not oppose the zoning request from a transport perspective. #3721 Convention Centre CERA 4.7 The submitter opposes the provision of open space within the Convention Centre Precinct and seeks that the Central City Avon River Precinct Zone is deleted from the land parcel within the Convention Centre Precinct. There are no transport reasons given within the submission therefore I am unable to provide a response to this submission from a transport perspective. However, I do note that the extent of the designation for the Convention Centre was confirmed in the Panel's Designations decision as Designation H3 the Convention Centre Precinct with the location being "Part Blocks defined by Armagh Street, Oxford Terrace, Colombo Street and Cathedral Square". 6 The scope for Council to change the designation is limited. I therefore remain neutral on this submission. # Madras Street (Part of Site off Dollans Lane) Pegasus Health (Charitable) Ltd 4.8 The submission seeks to zone Dollans Lane between Bealey Ave and Madras Street (at 401 Madras Street) and the road access between the site and Bealey Avenue from CCR to CCMU. The zoning creates no changes to how 6 Final Decision Decision 5, Chapter 10: Designations and Heritage Orders excluding Christchurch International Airport, at Pages

7 the current site access operates. I therefore do not oppose the zoning request from a transport perspective. # Montreal Street Tom Robinson Ltd 4.9 The submitter seeks to rezone 390 Montreal Street from CCR to CCB, to reflect the sites current and historic use as a commercial office. Given the existing use as an office, the zoning request would have no transport effect. I therefore do not oppose the submission from a transport perspective. # Kilmore Street Cancer Society of NZ Canterbury West Coast Division Incorporated 4.10 The Cancer Society seeks that the part of its land that is presently zoned CCR be zoned the same as the balance of its site, which is CCMU. Resource consent for a building on the site to accommodate meeting rooms and administration was granted in As the rezoning reflects a consented use, there are no transport issues arising from the zoning request and I therefore do not oppose the zoning request from a transport perspective. # Peterborough Street Ceres NZ Ltd 4.11 The submitter seeks a change from CCR to a site specific zoning, with 25% of floor space as CCB and 75% as Central City Guest Accommodation (CCGA). Given the (small) size of the subject site, I am of the view that there are no transport constraints that preclude the requested zoning. I therefore do not oppose the zoning request from a transport perspective. # and 307 Madras Street, 205 and 207 Kilmore Street, and 202 Peterborough Street NZ Institute of Management Southern Incorporated 4.12 The submitters seek zoning from CCR to CCMU. At approximately 0.3ha I consider the site to be small enough such that any potential traffic effects on surrounding road network are likely to be negligible. I therefore do not oppose the zoning request from a transport perspective. 5

8 # Oxford Terrace Carter Group Ltd (Star and Garter Site) 4.13 The submitter seeks a zoning from CCR to CCB or CCGA. Given that opportunity exists to establish complying access points along Oxford Terrace and Nova Place and the relatively small size of the subject site, I am of the view that there are no transport constraints that preclude the requested zoning. I therefore do not oppose the zoning request from a transport perspective. #3212 Christ's College 4.14 The submitter seeks rezoning of land at Christ's College from CCR to CC Schools Zone (CCS). The subject site is described as ancillary to the operations of the Christ College which include residential uses for college staff. I consider that the requested zone change reflects the existing activities on the subject site and as such I do not consider there to be a material change in trip generation characteristics as a consequence of the zone request. I therefore do not oppose the zoning request from a transport perspective. # Tuam Street Church Property Trustees, Catholic Bishop of Christchurch and Alpine Presbytery 4.15 The submitters seek to zone the properties within 95 Tuam Street from CCS to CCB. Given the current use of the subject buildings for commercial purposes, the requested zoning will have no changes in respect to traffic and transportation. I therefore do not oppose the zoning request from a transport perspective. 6

9 # Papanui Road - Papanui Road Limited 4.16 The submitter seeks to rezone the subject site from CC to CCB. From a transport perspective there is no discernible difference between these zones in terms of potential trip generation and impact on the transport network. I therefore do not oppose the zoning request from a transport perspective. Andrew Milne 16 December