Decisions On Christchurch Intensification Plan
Minister for RMA Reform
The Minister Responsible for RMA Reform, Chris Bishop, has today released his decisions on 17 recommendations referred to him by Christchurch City Council on its Intensification Planning Instrument (Plan Change 14).
'In December 2024, the Council accepted the majority of the Independent Hearings Panel's (IHP) recommendations on those parts of Plan Change 14 subject to Policies 3 and 4 of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 (NPS-UD),' Minister Bishop says.
'These recommendations were incorporated into its district plan. The Council rejected 20 of the IHP's recommendations and referred them, along with its own alternative recommendations, to me for a final decision in early 2025.
'I have carefully considered this matter and taken extensive advice from officials. The law requires that I only consider matters that the IHP could have taken into account when making its recommendations.
'I have made decisions on 17 of the 20 recommendations referred to me by the Council, which relate to a range of issues including qualifying matters, zoning and built form standards.
'Together, these decisions will enable a greater level of development in and around Christchurch City's urban centres as required by Policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD.
'I have not made decisions on three recommendations relating to Daresbury House, Antonio Hall and the Piko Residential Character Area.
'I intend to consider these recommendations once the Council has decided on the zoning of these areas. The Council may refer these decisions to me again ahead of deciding on the balance of Plan Change 14.
'I thank the Councillors, the Independent Hearings Panel and Council staff for the work undertaken on the Intensification Streamlined Planning Process so far.'
Minister Bishop's decisions, made under Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991, are final and cannot be appealed to the Environment Court.
A table outlining the decisions is attached here.
Policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD are set out on page 11 of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020.
The Minister's decision making process is set out in Section 105, Schedule 1 of the RMA: .
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
8 hours ago
- RNZ News
Napier councillor Nigel Simpson launches second bid to be mayor
Nigel Simpson. Photo: Supplied Napier City councillor Nigel Simpson is having another crack at the top job. The second-term councillor says he is determined to deliver the "decisive change" Napier needs. "I'm standing for mayor for the same reasons I did in 2022. Napier needs someone to lead it who knows how to think strategically and can plan ahead," he said. "At the moment the staff are at sixes and sevens because of the constant inconsistency, which doesn't help with efficiency and affects the ability of staff to do their job. "That's not a criticism of staff, that's on elected members' shoulders for constantly changing the rules on how we operate." He says several councillors have indicated they won't be seeking re-election. "This is an opportunity to find councillors with the skills to create strategic plans for staff to get stuck in." Simpson says Napier has been let down by poor decisions, costly distractions, and a lack of consistent governance, and "the city deserves better". "Our community deserves a mayor and council that knows how to think strategically, set a clear and consistent direction, and keep rates under control. Right now, we have the opposite: chaotic budgeting, reactive decisions, and a long list of broken promises. He says he would immediately fight to scrap an unbudgeted $20 million plus regional park to filter stormwater into Ahuriri, rethink the $110m library and Council building project and reset the council. "There must be a strong focus on essential infrastructure and core services." The consultant and part-time farmer says when he's not working he likes to walk and enjoys getting away in his caravan for micro breaks. "Sadly I take my laptop and work. But hey, they say a change is as good as a holiday." LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Scoop
9 hours ago
- Scoop
US Vetoes Security Council Resolution Demanding Permanent Ceasefire In Gaza
4 June 2025 The text, co-sponsored by Algeria, Denmark, Greece, Guyana, Pakistan, Panama, the Republic of Korea, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, and Somalia – collectively known as the E-10 – received 14 votes in favour, with the US casting the lone vote against. As one of the council's five permanent members, the US holds veto power – a negative vote that automatically blocks any resolution from going forward. Had it been adopted, the draft would have demanded 'an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire in Gaza' to be respected by all parties. Release all hostages The text reaffirmed the Council's earlier call for the ' immediate, dignified and unconditional release of all hostages held by Hamas and other groups.' The draft also expressed grave concern over the ' catastrophic humanitarian situation ' in Gaza – following months of almost total Israeli aid blockade – including the risk of famine, highlighted by recent assessments by international food security experts. It reaffirmed the obligation of all parties to comply with international law, including international humanitarian and human rights law. Resume flow of aid In addition to a ceasefire, the draft resolution demanded the ' immediate and unconditional lifting of all restrictions ' on the entry and distribution of humanitarian aid in Gaza, calling for safe and unhindered access for UN and humanitarian partners across the enclave. It also urged the restoration of essential services, in accordance with humanitarian principles and prior Security Council resolutions. The text voiced support for ongoing mediation efforts led by Egypt, Qatar, and the United States to revive the phased ceasefire framework outlined in resolution 2735 (2024), which envisions a permanent cessation of hostilities, the release of all hostages, the exchange of Palestinian prisoners, the return of all remains, full Israeli military withdrawal from Gaza, and the start of a long-term reconstruction plan. Draft resolution unacceptable: United States Speaking ahead of the vote, acting US Representative Dorothy Shea described the draft resolution as 'unacceptable'. 'US opposition to this resolution should come as no surprise – it is unacceptable for what it does say, it is unacceptable for what it does not say, and it is unacceptable for the manner in which it has been advanced,' she said. 'The United States has been clear,' she continued, 'we would not support any measure that fails to condemn Hamas and does not call for Hamas to disarm and leave Gaza.' She added that Hamas has rejected numerous ceasefire proposals, including one over the weekend that would have provided a pathway to end the conflict and release the remaining hostages. 'We cannot allow the Security Council to award Hamas' intransigence,' Ms. Shea said, stressing, 'Hamas and other terrorists must have no future in Gaza. As Secretary [Marco] Rubio has said: 'If an ember survives, it will spark again into a fire'.' 'The world is watching' The failure of the resolution comes as the humanitarian crisis in Gaza deepens, with UN agencies warning of the total collapse of health services, growing displacement, and a rising death toll around the new privatized US-Israel led aid distribution system which bypasses established agencies. 'The world is watching, day after day, horrifying scenes of Palestinians being shot, wounded or killed in Gazawhile simply trying to eat,' said UN relief chief Tom Fletcher earlier on Wednesday.
RNZ News
13 hours ago
- RNZ News
The House: A sentencing hearing in Parliament
Rawiri Waititi speaks in the debate on the Privileges Committee's majority recommendation of parliamentary suspensions for three Te Pāti Māori MPs. The noose is a reference to a tupuna who was hanged in Mount Eden Prison. Photo: VNP / Louis Collins The fate of the three Te Pāti Māori MPs who performed a haka during the vote on the first reading of the Principles of Treaty of Waitangi Bill last November was decided on Thursday , following a long, and at times intense debate. The Privileges hearing outcome was something the Government clearly wanted finished, and it ended the week. Leader of the House Chris Bishop, kicked off Thursday's debate by asking the House to bring down the curtain on an issue that has lingered in Parliament for seven months. The debate boiled down to whether the recommended punishments - all unprecedented - were fair, or even wise. Before the debate paused a fortnight ago, the positions of the two largest parties ( National and Labour ) had been outlined. The Privileges Committee Chair, Judith Collins had stood by the recommended punishments, while Chris Hipkins moved an amendment to reduce them to more historically usual levels. Some of the speeches stepped beyond a simple defence or opposition. Some were personal, some philosophical, some emotional. A few moments are noted below. Labour's Duncan Webb, who is Deputy Chair of the Privileges Committee, is a former jurist and went for the dissect-the-facts approach. It felt like a trial defence summary. "It's well known that those three members chose not to attend the Privileges Committee or provide any explanation. They weren't required to attend the committee. They were not called to attend and therefore did not have to. Whilst they can't claim credit for cooperation - nor can they say they were denied an opportunity to explain - neither can they be punished. "It appears that some members of the committee may feel affronted that the members didn't come to the committee when they were invited. They may even consider that the members were defiant in not attending. "However, they were not required to attend. This is no justification for the imposition of a punishment that is disproportionate and arbitrary." Te Tai Tonga MP Tākuta Ferris took Te Pāti Māori's first call, and took a constitutional approach, questioning the underpinnings of the institution making the judgement. "This debate is not about a haka. It is not about a suspension. It's not about the interruption of a vote. "It is, at its heart, about the fact that this House continues to ignore Te Tiriti o Waitangi, that this House continues to ignore Māori sovereignty, and that this House continues to ignore all of the constitutional rights that flow forth from those two things. "The fact of the matter is simple: without Māori sovereignty, there is no Te Tiriti o Waitangi. "Without Te Tiriti o Waitangi, there is no constitutional right for the presence of the Crown in this part of the world. "Without the constitutional right, there is no Parliament." New Zealand First Leader Winston Peters is a harsh critic of Te Pāti Māori. There was a sense that the pot was boiling over as Peters, himself a member of the Privileges Committee, launched into Te Pāti Māori MPs. "No ordinary Māori, Māori, or non-Māori should accept the behaviour or the intent of this party of absolute extremists, screaming out that everybody else in the Parliament is here only by their behest. "Have a look in the mirror. Mr Ferris, look in the mirror. What is the majority of your DNA? What's the majority of your DNA? Well, if you're disgraced by your European DNA, we over here are not. We are proud of all sides of our background because we are New Zealanders first and foremost. As for blood quantum, if the cowboy hat wearer is an example of blood quantum, I'm going to a new biology class." Winston Peters speaks in the debate on the Privileges Committee's majority recommendation of parliamentary suspensions for three Te Pāti Māori MPs. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith Labour's Willie Jackson also focused his speech on Te Pāti Māori, playing what could be called the role of 'good cop' and encouraging them to compromise. "You know I love you, but a little bit of compromise could help the situation... I know it's hard to apologise, but I want to say to you Te Pāti Māori that not every single Māori in the country supports you and they don't support some of the strategy. "They love you, I love you, but some of the stuff is not going down well. "This is the centre and a celebration of the Westminster system, and I think our challenge - as, I think, you know - is that we have to imbue some of our Māori culture into the system. "We have to get a partnership going, and I don't think the kōrero so far is going to help with the partnership. You know, we have to get the House to embrace some of our values." Willie Jackson speaks in the debate on the Privileges Committee's majority recommendation of parliamentary suspensions for three Te Pāti Māori MPs. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith Former Speaker Adrian Rurawhe is also from Labour's Māori caucus. His speech was a change of pace and had a touch of elder statesman. He began by speaking of a new precedent set - a government majority within the privileges committee punishing the opposition. Raiwiri Waititi and Adrian Rurawhe chat during the debate on the Privileges Committee's majority recommendation of parliamentary suspensions for three Te Pāti Māori MPs. Photo: VNP / Louis Collins "There are no winners in this debate. Each party in this House might think they're winning by talking to the people that support them, but there are no winners in this debate - none - especially not this House. "The Privileges Committee of the future will have a new precedent, without a doubt - a new range of penalties against members who err in the future. You can guarantee that. "You can also guarantee that Governments of the day, in the future, will feel very free to use those penalties to punish their opponents. "This is what we are doing in the House today." The House also heard from the ACT party, who the Te Pāti Māori performed the haka in front of. One of the key points of contention was whether the ACT MPs were victims of intimidation. All three ACT MPs who spoke certainly thought so, with Karen Chhour, who compared the debate to an HR meeting. "I've listened to the speeches across this House, and the hate and the anger that's been chucked from both sides of this House, and it actually really saddens me - it really saddens me. Somebody can say that I don't have the right to stand here and speak, but that's what this place is about. "Four and a half years ago, when I had the privilege of being elected into this place, I felt that burden of what was expected of me when I came to this place, to represent the people that I wanted to come here to make a better life for." "This is what the Privileges Committee is there for - sort of like our HR, where we sit down and we discuss what the issue was and, hopefully, can come to a medium ground where there is a little bit of contrition shown from those who have had the accusations brought to them, and then a simple apology could be enough." Demanding an apology for behaviour found to be intimidating is actually one of the most common punishments recommended by the committee. The Committee's report noted that the MPs not meeting the Committee had no bearing on their decision. As in most courtrooms, where the accused have the chance to represent themselves. All three Te Pāti Māori MPs in question spoke during the debate. Rawiri Waititi used his speech to not only defend his and his colleague's position but as a rallying cry. Rawiri Waititi speaks in the debate on the Privileges Committee's majority recommendation of parliamentary suspensions for three Te Pāti Māori MPs. Photo: VNP / Louis Collins "Turn our rage into power and make this a one-term Government. Enrol! Vote! If you hear the haka outside these walls, add your voice. If you see injustice trending online, amplify the truth. "If you feel fear, remember fear is the coloniser's last currency. Spend it into worthlessness by standing up. You can bench my body from this house for 21 days, but you will never bench our movement." The Greens' Steve Abel, who was the last to speak, also picked up on the courthouse feel to it all, but not just any courthouse. "We're not supposed to critique the courts, but I guess this is a court of our Parliament. The Privileges Committee represents the Parliament. We have two of the most senior members of this Parliament on that Privileges Committee, the then Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters, and the Attorney-General, Judith Collins. "Two of the most senior members, both lawyers, have egregiously punished one of the newest members of this Parliament. "What is the message that that sends to young people watching about the justice of this House, to newcomers to the House? "What is the message that it sends about a young Māori woman who has come and spoken with such certainty of the people she represents? "I think it sends a very bad message and I believe it renders the character of the Privileges Committee under that leadership as something of a kangaroo court." After three hours of debate, the House finally came to vote. All amendments put forward by the Opposition were voted down, and the original motion supporting the punishment recommended by the Privileges Committee was agreed upon, thereby kicking off the suspension period for the three Te Pāti Māori MPs, who also lost their salary and their votes in the House whilst suspended. - RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
