Lack of housing: Timaru councillors push hot topic into open meeting

Timaru councillors have pushed back against a recommendation to discuss urban growth matters behind closed doors, with not one willing to support a motion to do so on Tuesday.

The item for discussion, a possible variation to the proposed Timaru District Plan on urban growth,

was tabled to be discussed in the public excluded section of the Timaru District Council’s environmental services’ committee meeting agenda on Tuesday.

A lack of housing has been a hot topic for the district, with business leaders, employers and elected officials all joining the chorus pushing for the council to open up more space for residential development.

In recommending councillors discuss a potential change to the proposed district plan to make way for residential and industrial development at Washdyke behind closed doors, council staff cited the need to protect commercially sensitive information, to protect communications between a legal adviser and clients, and to prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage as reasons.

But that was not good enough for councillors.

Under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, councillors can choose to close meetings to the public, meaning neither members of the public nor media can be present when the item is discussed, the report read or subsequent minutes.

Councillor Stu Piddington was quick to question the need to discuss the item privately.

“Behind closed doors it’s all whispers. The person [developer] is happy for it to be discussed in public,’’ Piddington said.

“I think being on the council, one of the things that is important is to get feedback on our ideas. I guess it’s good to see open debate.”

Committee chairperson Michelle Pye asked legal representative Michael Garbett for advice.

Garbett said it was up to councillors to decide whether something should be discussed in public or public excluded.

“There are three reasons why you could hold items in excluded – the procedural risks involved, and the others are around landowner involvement so far and to protect the process,’’ he said.

Timaru District mayor Nigel Bowen asked what risk an open discussion posed, before saying he held no strong view either way. Councillor Stacey Scott was of a similar opinion.

When Pye sought a mover for the recommendation that “public be excluded”, she was met with silence, and ordered the meeting to continue in public.

Planning manager Hamish Barrell’s report says besides redevelopment of existing sites, the overall logical direction for further growth is greenfield development to the north of Timaru’s existing town boundary.

This would mean real estate development in previously undeveloped areas.

According to the report, modern, affordable housing would be a welcome addition to Timaru with approximately 450 homes across the area, on Kennels Rd, and was fully supported by economic and tourism agency Venture Timaru as “meeting the market niche to house key workers coming into the district’’.

Interest for industrial expansion on Seadown Rd had also been expressed to the council, the report says.

Booth saw the idea as “an opportunity’’ and said affordable housing was needed in the district.

“According to the council’s Growth Management Strategy there was land ready for development, but some of that had been “sitting there since 1988’’.

He felt that when the strategy was delivered Mahoneys Hill and new development areas should have been removed as they were “all on a hill and not $250,000 sections’’.

“College Rd, Redruth – for goodness’ sake, no wonder we’re a retirement home,’’ Booth said.

“We’re missing the bottom rung to get onto the property ladder, to build something and achieve that here in South Canterbury.’’

He said councillors could vote and move the possible variation forward, regardless of the reports.

Bowen said he was interested in what the costs would be around infrastructure.

Council infrastructure planner Kevin Kemp said its funding was primarily from rates, using financial contributions when they best suited.

Dixon said the developer would be expected to pay for infrastructure within the development, and there was a provision in the plan for contributions.

He used the example of Broughs Gully, in Timaru’s north end, where there was planned infrastructure and financial contributions.

“That all had to be done upfront before the land is developed otherwise the council would have to loan fund or rates fund the actual infrastructure.’’

Scott asked what the next step was for the possible variation.

Barrell said reports would have to be prepared, consultants commissioned and “we’d have to look at the economics, natural hazards – all of those things which fall under the risk, climate change and so on’’.

“Once we have the suite of documents, and we believe it can pass, we’d come back to council, it would be notified, there would be a call for submissions, then it would go to a hearing.

“We’d have to go to the ministry and extend the proposed plan hearings.’’

Dixon said that investigation could cost up to $500,000 which was not budgeted for at this stage.

Scott said while it would put pressure on resources, it would be negligent not to look at the opportunity.

Cooper said, for clarity, there would be no resources in-house to collate the data, so it would need to be delivered by consultants.

Bowen warned councillors the matter would trigger conversations around Temuka and Geraldine “so just be ready for it’’.

He moved that councillors recommend that officers investigate how to deliver the greenfield growth options on the northern margin of Timaru and consider legal and funding implications. Burt seconded the recommendation.