Relief for residents must be the first priority here
It’s the biggest conflagration to blow up between city council staff and elected members since the revolt against Tony Marryatt’s pay rise in 2011. Councillor David East and three community board members, Kim Money, Tim Sintes and Darrell Latham, now find themselves the subject of Code of Conduct staff complaints and pending disciplinary action.
Yes, it was inflammatory for these four elected members to publicly speculate that tampering by council staff could be behind a gaping defect in the Christchurch Replacement District Plan.
But they didn’t single out any individuals by name.
Council hierarchy wasted no time circling the wagons and rounding on the four members in question.
It has prompted East to return fire against council staff, filing complaints over what he claims were intemperate character attacks on him.
As much as these disciplinary procedures are a sideshow and a distraction, what a pity the council pooh-bahs didn’t pounce with the same degree of resolve and urgency over the central issue at hand earlier.
It’s been rumbling for several months. And the fact that this defect in the District Plan, pertaining to 1486 residential sections surrounding the estuary, is now finally front and centre of their considerations is a major victory for the four crusading elected members.
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’’.
The Christchurch Replacement District Plan has only been operative since December, following an exhaustive Independent Hearing Panel (IHP) process, overseen by Sir John Hansen and his deputy, Environment Court Judge Hassan.
As Sir John says in his letter to East, a fortnight ago, the building restrictions for landowners, as proposed at the time by the council’s planning officer, Ruth Evans, were ‘‘too onerous’’ for residents within the Residential Unit Overlay around the estuary.
Decision 53 by the IHP was designed to ensure residential owners could still build new homes and make extensions to their houses, as a restricted discretionary activity (RDA).
Hansen’s letter says, ‘‘My understanding is that while the RDA rule is included in the plan, the policy was at some stage omitted from the planning provisions.’’
Council staff never sought to ensure the policy was reinserted.
Hansen also writes, ‘‘If this matter had been brought to our attention, we would certainly have added the policy back into the plan. It would appear that the omission of the policy was known before our jurisdiction ceased.’’
So was it a genuine mistake by council staff, extreme carelessness, or worse – was it wilful negligence?
Asenior council source has sent me a legal opinion which lays out the case that the IHP only directed council staff to insert a revised rule into the final cut District Plan – not the policy that gives effect to it. ‘‘They simply never turned their mind to it.’’ In other words, they argue the IHP dropped the ball.
But even if that is the case, why didn’t council staff alert the IHP to the oversight, if they knew about it? It reeks of spitefulness.
Moreover, the most explosive allegation from the four elected members last week is the claim that council staff ‘‘openly admitted at a meeting last month that they had deleted the clause from the plan’s final draft.’’
I asked Kim Money if that was recorded in the minutes.
She replied, ‘‘I’d expect the council notes/ minutes would reflect and align with what I have recorded.’’
In the interests of trust, confidence and accountability, the public is owed an explanation.
Some elected members claim to me there could be more undetected District Plan defects ticking away.
But the immediate priority is to ensure those beleaguered estuary-bordering residents are given the relief as expressly intended in the District Plan.
Whether that be through the Regeneration Act, or as an Order in Council correction, let’s get it done.
... the fact that this defect in the District Plan ... is now finally front and centre of their considerations is a major victory for the four crusading elected members.