I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Auckland Development Committee will be held on:

 

Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 28 November 2013

9.30am

Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

 

Auckland Development Committee

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Penny Hulse

 

Deputy Chairperson

Chris Darby

 

Members

Cr Anae Arthur Anae

Member Liane Ngamane

 

Cr Cameron Brewer

Cr Calum Penrose

 

Mayor Len Brown, JP

Cr Dick Quax

 

Cr Dr Cathy Casey

Member Josie Smith

 

Cr Bill Cashmore

Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM

 

Cr Ross Clow

Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE

 

Cr Linda Cooper, JP

Cr Wayne Walker

 

Cr Alf Filipaina

Cr John Watson

 

Cr Hon Chris Fletcher, QSO

Cr Penny Webster

 

Cr Denise Krum

Cr George Wood, CNZM

 

Cr Mike Lee

 

 

 

 

 

(Quorum 11 members)

 

 

 

Tam White

Democracy Advisor

 

22 November 2013

 

Contact Telephone: 09 307 7253

Email: tam.white@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 

TERMS OF REFERENCE

 

 

Responsibilities

 

This committee will guide the physical development and growth of Auckland through a focus on land use planning, housing and the appropriate provision of infrastructure and strategic projects associated with these activities. Key responsibilities include:

 

·         Unitary Plan

·         Plan changes to operative plans

·         Designation of Special Housing Areas

·         Housing policy and projects including Papakainga housing

·         Spatial Plans including Area Plans

·         City centre development (incl reporting of CBD advisory board) and city transformation projects

·         Tamaki regeneration projects

·         Built Heritage

·         Urban design

 

Powers

 

(i)         All powers necessary to perform the committee’s responsibilities.

Except:

(a)     powers that the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (see Governing Body responsibilities)

(b)     where the committee’s responsibility is explicitly limited to making a recommendation only

(ii)      Approval of a submission to an external body

(iii)     Powers belonging to another committee, where it is necessary to make a decision prior to the next meeting of that other committee.

(iv)    Power to establish subcommittees.

 

 

 


Auckland Development Committee

28 November 2013

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                        PAGE

1          Apologies                                                                                                                        5

2          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   5

3          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               5

4          Petitions                                                                                                                          5  

5          Public Input                                                                                                                    5

5.1     Ben Ross                                                                                                               5

6          Local Board Input                                                                                                          5

7          Extraordinary Business                                                                                                6

8          Notices of Motion                                                                                                          6

9          An overview of the City Transformation and Urban design programme               7

10        Submission to the Board of Inquiry on the Pūhoi to Warkworth Section of the Ara Tūhono Pūhoi to Wellsford Road of National Significance Proposal                 135

11        Heritage Update                                                                                                         137

12        Auckland Plan Annual Implementation Update 2013/2014                                   143

13        Update on recent submissions regarding offshore petroleum exploration       193

14        Proposed private Plan Change 42 - Albany centre Business 11 zoning amendments                                                                                                                                     199

15        Approval of Plan Change 33 – Business Built Heritage Areas – Auckland Council District Plan (North Shore section)                                                                                       297

16        Proposed Plan Change 14 (PC 14) Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) - To be made Operative                                                                                                     333

17        Request to make Proposed Plan Change 37 (Additions to Schedule 6B - Notable Trees and Stands of Trees to be Protection) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) operative                                                                                                      337

18        Private Plan Change 159 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) 2011 - Peninsula Golf Course Rezoning                                                                            341  

19        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

 

 


1          Apologies

 

Apologies from Cr P Webster for absence, Cr C Casey for lateness and Mayor L Brown for early departure have been received.

 

 

2          Declaration of Interest

 

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

 

 

3          Confirmation of Minutes

 

There are no minutes to be confirmed.

 

 

4          Petitions

 

At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.

 

 

5          Public Input

 

Standing Order 3.21 provides for Public Input.  Applications to speak must be made to the Committee Secretary, in writing, no later than two (2) working days prior to the meeting and must include the subject matter.  The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.  A maximum of thirty (30) minutes is allocated to the period for public input with five (5) minutes speaking time for each speaker.

 

5.1       Ben Ross

Purpose

1.       Mr Ben Ross has requested time to speak to the Auckland Development Committee.  The Chairperson has approved the request.

Executive Summary

2.       Mr Ross will give a presentation that will cover the following matters:

·    Introduction and laying the challenge down on Area Plans

·    “Looking at Developing a 21st Century Auckland”

·    Redeveloping Manukau for the 21st Century

Several other matters will be briefing touched on.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      receive the presentation from Mr Ben Ross and thank him for his attendance at the Auckland Development Committee.

 

 

 

6          Local Board Input

 

Standing Order 3.22 provides for Local Board Input.  The Chairperson (or nominee of that Chairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this time.  The Chairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall wherever practical, give two (2) days notice of their wish to speak.  The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.

 

This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 3.9.14 to speak to matters on the agenda.

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for local board input had been received.

 

 

7          Extraordinary Business

 

Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

 

“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-

 

(a)        The local  authority by resolution so decides; and

 

(b)        The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-

 

(i)         The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

 

(ii)        The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”

 

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

 

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

 

(a)        That item may be discussed at that meeting if-

 

(i)         That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

 

(ii)        the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

 

(b)        no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

 

 

8          Notices of Motion

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for notices of motion had been received.

 


Auckland Development Committee

28 November 2013

 

An overview of the City Transformation and Urban design programme

 

File No.: CP2013/26246

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is to provide the Auckland Development Committee with an overview of the three-year (2013 – 16) regional development and transformation work programme for Auckland, including the city centre. It sets out key projects and initiatives that encompass urban development, city transformation and urban design activity.

Executive Summary

2.       The regional development, city transformation and urban design work programme contributes significantly to achieving the strategic directions of the Auckland Plan (2012) and Auckland’s vision of becoming the world’s most liveable city by 2040. A key component of the city transformation programme is the delivery of a number of place-based projects that demonstrate Council’s commitment to ensuring Auckland’s urban design quality and long-term sustainability is vastly improved.

3.       The programme includes a range of capital and operational projects and initiatives, which originate from Area Planning, Structure Planning and urban design work. Projects include those, which Council is leading, as well as those where Council is collaborating with others, including the private sector.

4.       Key projects within the 2013-2016 work programme for regional development, city transformation and urban design include:

·    Tamaki Transformation Project (in partnership with the Crown and Tamaki Redevelopment Company)

·    Delivery of capital projects in areas of growth as identified in the Auckland Plan, such as Hobsonville Point, Hobsonville Corridor, Westgate Town Centre and Flat Bush, including Ormiston Town Centre and Pukekohe Town Centre

·    Implementation of Local Centre improvements on behalf of Local Boards including Orakei,  Kaipatiki and Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Boards

·    Delivery of Transit Orientated Developments (TOD’s) including New Lynn and Lot 59 in Manukau

·    Implementation of specific priority capital projects within the City Centre Masterplan (2012), including the Federal Street and O’Connell Street shared spaces as well as the Myers Park, Freyberg Square and Upper Khartoum Place upgrades.

·    Ongoing development of the Auckland Design Manual (ADM)  

·    Ongoing management of the independent Auckland Urban Design Panel (AUDP) to reviews significant private development proposals

·    Review of significant council-led capital projects against best practice urban design

·    Design advice on major private sector Resource consents   

5.       The transformation of the City Centre is a key focus of the regionwide programme and is a place-based initiative identified as one of the two “Big Idea” priorities in the Auckland Plan (2012).  The City Centre work programme is guided by the CCMP (2012), which was produced in parallel with the Waterfront Plan (2012), The Economic Development Strategy (2012) and the Auckland Plan.

 

 

 

6.       Officers acknowledge that there are significant implications on the CCMP capital works programme, given the City Rail Link and other public and private development activity in the City Centre. Officers therefore propose to work with the Auckland Development Committee in early 2014, to establish an Integrated Project Delivery Programme for the City Centre, in response to the delivery and construction timeframes of the City Rail Link.

7.       The implementation of the development and transformation work programme is the responsibility of the City Transformation Unit, within the Regional and Local Planning (RLP) Department of the Chief Planning office (CPO), which has responsibility for the capital spend associated with transformational projects within RLP. In the case of the City Centre work this responsibility lies with Manager, Environmental Strategy and Policy (ESP) but does not include Waterfront Auckland (WA) areas of control. 

8.       To achieve the successful implementation of the programme, the City Transformation Unit (and where appropriate the BEU) works in collaboration with a number of external and internal stakeholders including Council Controlled Organisations (CCO’s) such as Auckland Transport, Watercare, Waterfront Auckland (WA), Auckland Council Property Limited (ACPL), Regional Facilities Auckland (RFA) the private sector and with departments across Council, including the Property, Finance and Built Environment Unit (BEU).

9.       The BEU is based within the Environmental Strategy and Policy (ESP) Department of the CPO and ensures the quality of design of place-based projects across the region. The Unit is arranged around three portfolios including Design Strategy and Advocacy, Design Review and Design Enabling.

10.     The BEU is also responsible for the implementation of Council’s obligations as signatory to the New Zealand Urban Design and the appointment of a Political Design Champion to be nominated by the Auckland Development Committee.

 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      Note that the regional development and transformation work programme for Auckland (including the city centre) focuses on the delivery and implementation of place-based transformational projects, which demonstrate Council’s commitment to ensuring Auckland’s urban design quality and long-term sustainability, is significantly improved.

b)      Notes key projects within the 2013-2016 regional development and city transformation programme.

c)      Endorses officers’ recommendation to hold a workshop with the Auckland Development Committee in February 2014, to establish an Integrated Project Delivery Programme for the City Centre, in response to the implications of the delivery and construction timeframes of the City Rail Link.

d)      Note the key activities and projects within the 2013-2016 urban design work programme.

e)      Nominate a Councillor to be appointed as Auckland Council’s Political Design Champion, in accordance with Council’s obligations as a signatory to the New Zealand Urban Design Protocol (MfE).

 

 

 


 

Discussion

Auckland’s regional development and transformation work programme

11.     The regional development, city transformation and urban design work programme contributes significantly to achieving Auckland’s vision of becoming the world’s most liveable city by 2040.  It is guided by the strategic directions of the Auckland Plan and helps to deliver the following priorities:

·    Realise quality compact urban environments

·    Demand good design in all development

·    Create enduring neighbourhoods, centres and business areas

12.     A key component of the programme is the delivery and implementation of a number of place-based transformational projects that demonstrate Council’s commitment to ensuring Auckland’s placemaking, urban design quality and long-term sustainability is improved. The projects and initiatives of the programme, which originate primarily from Area Planning and Structure Planning work, encompass planning, design, development and implementation.

13.     Projects include those, which Council is leading, as well as those where Council is collaborating with others, including the private sector. Key projects within the 2013-2016 work programme for regional development and transformation include:

·    Tamaki Transformation Project (in partnership with the Crown and Tamaki Redevelopment Company)

·    Delivery of capital projects in areas of growth as identified in the Auckland Plan, such as Hobsonville Point, Hobsonville Corridor, Westgate Town Centre and Flat Bush, including Orminston Town Centre and Pekekohe Town Centre

·    Implementation of Local Centre improvements on behalf of Local Boards including Orakei,  Kaipatiki and Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Boards

·    Delivery of Transit Orientated Developments (TOD’s) including New Lynn and Lot 59 in Manukau

·    Implementation of capital projects within the CCMP, including Federal Street upgrade, O’Connell Street, Myers Park and Freyberg Square and Upper Khartoum Place as well as the Shared Space programme.

14.     More information on individual projects and initiatives within the programme can be found in City Transformation Projects – development and transformation work programme (Attachment A).

 

Environmentally Sustainable Design

 

15.     There is a growing focus within Auckland Council, that the projects within the development and transformation work programme deliver quality environmentally sustainable design, as promoted in the Auckland Design Manual (ADM) and the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (2013).

16.     The Auckland Energy Resilience and Low Carbon Action Plan is currently in working draft form and contains actions for the way council can promote the transformation of the built environment to achieve the goals set down of the Auckland Plan.   Two of the key elements - 'Inspiring hearts and minds through leadership and quality exemplars' and 'Supporting sustainable design standards'  relate directly to the work of the BEU through the Auckland Design Manual (ADM) and Unitary Plan (UP).  

 

 

 

 

17.     The ADM provides information and inspiration with regards to built case studies, such as the Zero Energy House in Pt Chevalier.  This is supported by detailed design guidance on how to achieve this for housing projects and larger subdivisions - all of which will be updated to ensure that this represents current international best practice.   The second release of the ADM in early 2014 will feature a dedicated resource on sustainability in the built environment with which to engage with the development community.   The BEU are also preparing information and metrics that can help further the development of sustainable design standards particularly for neighbourhood developments (rather than individual building).  

 

18.     The proposed Unitary Plan includes a range of measures that go some way towards achieving more sustainable building design including:

·    General promotion of a quality compact city that will promote greater efficiency in transport and reduce energy use.

·    General support for home solar energy generation.

·    Allowance for optimum eave depths to allow for summer shade and solar gain in winter.

·    Requirement for larger commercial developments to include bicycle parking and end of trip facilities.

·    Encouragement of rainwater detention tanks, green roofs and rain gardens.

·    New Zealand Green Building Council 4-Star Green Building rating for commercial and industrial buildings

·    A minimum 6-Star level from the New Zealand Green Building Council Homestar Tool (2013) for new developments containing five or more dwellings  

·    Introduce the ability to use the Living Building Challenge and Australian Green Building Council tools

 

19.     Presently there is no formal application of environmentally sustainable design principles and standards to councils physical projects.  Environmentally sustainable design and whole of life costs do however form part of the review criteria for the BEU administered Major Projects Review Panel which provides a cross council review of all major council CAPEX projects.  The Property Department’s Sustainability Team are also leading council’s organisation-wide corporate, community and business sustainability efforts promoting exemplar sustainable building design projects when the opportunity arises.

 

Transformation of Auckland’s City Centre

20.     The transformation of the City Centre is a key focus of the regionwide programme and is a place-based initiative identified as a priority in the Auckland Plan. 

21.     The City Centre work programme is guided by the City Centre Masterplan (CCMP), which was produced in parallel with the Auckland Plan. The CCMP sets out a 20-year strategic direction for the future of the city centre. $130million has been allocated over a 10-year timeframe in the 2012-22 LTP for delivery of specific capital projects with the city centre.

22.     Officers acknowledge that there are significant implications on the CCMP capital works project programme of work, given the City Rail Link and other developments in the City Centre and propose to undertake a reproitisation of the 2013-2016 city centre capital works programme, in collaboration with the Auckland Development Committee, in early 2014.

 


 

Implementation of Auckland’s regional development and transformation work programme

City Transformation Projects Unit

23.     The implementation of the development and transformation work programme, including in the City Centre, is the responsibility of the City Transformation Projects Unit, in Regional and Local Planning. Typically the City Transformation Unit’s work involves:

·    Input into initial plans so as to test viability

·    Setting out the strategy for achieving the desired outcome

·    Preparing a business case for the project and securing funding for the project

·    Managing the project budgets and expenditure

·    Arranging governance and reporting  for the project

·    Undertaking procurement for the project or programme, either from within Council or outsource

·    Leading the delivery of the project in accordance with agreed budget and programme, so as to ensure that place-based outcomes are achieved

·    Ensuring all work is implemented in accordance with the Council’s project management framework

24.     The Unit has responsibility for the capital spends associated with transformational projects within Regional and Local Planning, which totals $187 million for the 2013-2016 period.

 

Achieving design quality

25.     To enable the successful delivery of the programme, and to ensure Auckland’s urban design quality and long-term sustainability is improved, the City Transformation Unit and Built Environment Unit (BEU) work in collaboration with a number of external and internal stakeholders. These include Council Controlled Organisations (CCO’s) such as Auckland Transport, Watercare, Waterfront Auckland (WA), ATEED, Auckland Council Property Limited (ACPL), the private sector and developers, as well as cross-council departments such as Property and Finance.

Built Environment Unit

26.     The BEU, based within the Environmental Strategy and Policy (ESP) Department, comprises 33 designers (architects, landscape architects and urban designers).  BEU is structured around three portfolios as follows:

·    Design Strategy and Advocacy: Auckland Design Manual (ADM); input into the Unitary Plan and Auckland Plan; an Urban Design Strategy; Maori Urban Design Principles; Auckland Urban Design Review Book, Local Board Design Champion Network; and training, research and advocacy

·    Design Review: resource consents; Housing Project Office (HPO) support; Auckland Urban Design Panel (independent review); and Major Projects Design Team (internal CAPEX project design review)

·    Design Enabling: – a range of design services into council place based plans and projects.

27.     Key initiatives include the development of the Auckland Design Manual (ADM) and the ongoing management of the independent Auckland Urban Design Panel, which reviews all major development proposals at a pre-resource consent lodgment stage.

28.     The BEU portfolios and activities under each are described in more detail in the Built Environment Unit’s 2012-15 Business Plan (Attachment B).

 

Political Design Champion

29.     The BEU is also responsible for the implementation of Council’s obligations as signatory to the New Zealand Urban Design Protocol, including the appointment of a Political Design Champion.  

30.     The Ministry of the Environment first launched the Urban Design Protocol (Attachment C) in 2005. The Protocol is a voluntary commitment by various organisations (including central and local government, design professionals, property professionals and professional institutes) to make New Zealand’s cities and towns better places for their inhabitants, through good urban design.  The Council became a signatory to the Protocol following a resolution of the April 2011 meeting of the Regional Development and Operations Committee (Resolution number RDO/2011/16).

31.     As a signatory to the Protocol the organisation is required to appoint a Design Champion (or Champions). The Ministry for the Environment sees the role of the Design Champion as primarily being to promote quality urban design within the organisation, and ensuring that urban design issues are considered in all relevant decisions (see Attachment B for a detailed role specification).

32.     Officers are now seeking a Councillor nomination for the Political Design Champion from the Auckland Development Committee for the period of the 2013-16 Auckland Council term.

33.     Under the previous term, Councillor Brewer held the position of Political Design Champion. Ludo Campbell-Reid, Department Manager - Environmental Strategy and Policy, will continue to be operate as council’s Design Champion at senior officer level.

Consideration

Local Board Views

34.     A number of Local Board funded projects are being implemented as part of the regional development and transformational programme, who are engaged throughout all stages of the projects.

35.     In addition, under the first term of Auckland council, each Local Board appointed a Design Champion to become part of the Local Board Design Champion network and ensure good urban design is achieved through local decision-making.  During the course of November and December 2013 Local Boards will be nominating a Champion for the new term.

Maori Impact Statement

36.     In order to deliver on Council’s commitment to Māori, officers are  committed to respond more effectively to Māori by:

·    enabling Te Tiriti o Waitangi/ Treaty of Waitangi

·    enabling Māori outcomes

·    fulfilling its statutory obligations to Māori

·    valuing Te Ao Māori (Māori cultural values, perspectives and practices).

37.     Officers are committed to recognising and providing for Māori values and perspectives as they relate to the built environment and Auckland’s transformation and development programme is developed in the context of the Auckland Plan identified Maori outcomes and and the Te Aranga principles identified in the ADM.

38.     In addition, in a joint initiative with the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) the BEU is working with a designated member of Ngā Aho, the Māori network of design professionals, on developing the Unit’s Māori responsiveness through a programme of training, mentoring, review and design exercises.

39.     Furthermore, on each individual project within the programme the relevant iwi are or have been consulted.

Implementation Issues

40.     The implementation of the development and transformation work programme, including in the City Centre, is the responsibility of the City Transformation Projects Unit, in Regional and Local Planning. With regards the City Centre programme overall accountability rests with Department Manager, Environmental Strategy and Policy. 

41.     To achieve the successful delivery of the programme the City Transformation and Built Environment Unit work in collaboration with a number of external and internal stakeholders including Council Controlled Organisations (CCO’s) such as Auckland Transport, Watetrfront Auckland, ATEED, RFA, Watercare, Auckland Council Property Limited (ACPL), the private sector and developers, as well as cross-council departments, including Property and Finance. This collaboration is necessary to enable a coordinated approach to project implementation and delivery.

42.     The City Transformation Unit has responsibility for the capital spend associated with transformational projects within Regional and Local Planning, which totals $187 million for the 2013-2016 period.

43.     Officers acknowledge that there are significant implications on the CCMP capital works project programme of work, given the City Rail Link and other developments in the City Centre and propose to undertake a reprioritisation of the 2013-2016 city centre capital works programme, in collaboration with the Auckland Development Committee, in early 2014.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

City Transformation Projects - development and transformation work programme

15

b

Built Environment Unit’s 2012-15 Business Plan

63

c

Urban Design Protocol

95

      

Signatories

Authors

Tim Watts – Manager Built Environment

John Dunshea – Manager City Transformation Projects

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Ludo Campbell-Reid - Environmental Strategy & Policy Manager

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

 


Auckland Development Committee

28 November 2013

 
















































Auckland Development Committee

28 November 2013

 
































Auckland Development Committee

28 November 2013

 









































Auckland Development Committee

28 November 2013

 

Submission to the Board of Inquiry on the Pūhoi to Warkworth Section of the Ara Tūhono Pūhoi to Wellsford Road of National Significance Proposal

 

File No.: CP2013/25805

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       This report requests that the Auckland Development Committee delegates to three to four members of the committee the responsibility to oversee the preparation and approval of a submission on the Pūhoi to Warkworth Road of National Significance application in order to meet the likely timeframes of the Board of Inquiry.

Executive Summary

2.       The New Zealand Transport Agency has lodged 2 Notices of Requirement and 15 resource consent applications with the Environmental Protection Agency, for the Pūhoi to Warkworth section of the Ara Tūhona Pūhoi to Wellsford Road of National Significance.  This application will be heard by a Board of Inquiry.  The likely notification and closing dates for submissions are respectively, the 16 November 2013 and the 13 December 2013.  It is recommended that the council consider making a submission.  To comply with the statutory submission time constraints, it is also recommended that the function of considering and approving a submission from the council be delegated to three to four members of this committee.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      delegate to three to four member of the committee the consideration and approval of a submission to the Board of Inquiry on the application by NZ Transport Agency for the construction and maintenance of the Pūhoi to Warkworth section of the Pūhoi to Wellsford Road of National Significance.

b)      instruct the delegated committee members to oversee the preparation and lodgment of the submission in consultation with the Rodney Local Board

 

 

Discussion

3.       The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) has lodged 2 Notice of Requirement and 15 applications for resource consent with the Environmental Protection Agency for the Pūhoi to Warkworth section of the Pūhoi to Wellsford Road of National Significance.  This application will be heard and decided on by a Board of Inquiry.  The likely notification and closing dates for submissions are respectively, the 16 November 2013 and the 13 December 2013.

4.       The Pūhoi to Warkworth section is part of the Pūhoi to Wellsford Road of National Significance project.  It is of strategic importance to both Auckland and Northland.  It is specifically listed in the Auckland Plan at page 334, as a transport priority for Auckland.

5.       If constructed, the new motorway would continue from the end of the existing motorway at Pūhoi, through to the north of Warkworth.  It would provide a high quality motorway alternative to the existing State Highway 1.  There would be an on-ramp and off-ramp provided at Pūhoi for trips to and from the south.  Construction could start in 2015 with completion estimated by 2025.  The cost is estimated to be $1.76 billion.

6.       The council has two roles in regard to the Board of Inquiry process for this project.  The first relates to the council’s statutory responsibility to assist the Board in processing the proposal both as a local authority and on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency.  This work is being overseen by staff from the Area Planning team covering the Rodney and Hibiscus and Bays Local Board areas.  Secondly, the council may, like any other organisation or individual, make a submission on the proposal.  It is this second role that is the subject of this report.  To ensure there is a clear separation of statutory and non-statutory roles, Area Planning staff servicing the North Shore Local Boards are coordinating the submission.

Consideration

Local Board Views

7.       The Road of National Significance will run through the Rodney Local Board area which has previously expressed support for the project.  It is recommended the views of the Rodney Local Board be sought as part of the preparation of a submission from the council.

Maori Impact Statement

8.       As part of its application documentation, the NZTA states: 

9.       “Consultation and engagement with mana whenua for the Project led to the formation of Hokai nuku, a collective of iwi representing Ngati Manuhiri, Ngati Mauku/Ngati Kauwae, Ngati Rango and Ngati Whatua iwi.  Ngati Paoa provide support where required.  Hokai nuku have provided cultural advice to the project, participated in site walkovers with technical specialists and prepared an assessment of cultural effects for the Project”. 

10.     Further discussion will take place with iwi once the project is publicly notified.

General

11.     The recommendation to delegate consideration and approval of a submission is consistent with the council’s strategies and policies and does not trigger the significance policy.

Implementation Issues

12.     Council staff will advise on and prepare any submission.  These costs are provided for within the Regional and Local Planning Departmental budget

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Authors

Warren Maclennan - Manager North West Planning

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

 


Auckland Development Committee

28 November 2013

 

Heritage Update

 

File No.: CP2013/26360

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To provide an update on various heritage matters.

Executive Summary

2.       The heritage work programme has to date has focused mainly on issues arising from the notification of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (2013) (PAUP).

Pre 1944 Overlay

3.       Officers have been setting up processes to manage the implementation of the controls resulting from the pre-1944 Building Demolition Control overlay. The focus has been on the historic heritage component of the rule as this has immediate legal effect whereas the special character component does not.

4.       In order to support the overlay before the PAUP hearings process, it is necessary to undertake a more comprehensive area by area survey than was possible prior to notification. In the 2014/15 Annual Plan process an investment proposal has been submitted for additional resources to undertake this work. 

Heritage Surveys

5.       After completing pilot projects for inclusion in the Unitary Plan, this year additional surveys are underway in the Pukekohe area as well as a survey of state housing in the region. Work is also underway or is being scoped for surveys in Pt Chevalier, Papatoetoe, Three Kings precinct plan and the Manukau Harbour Foreshore survey.

The World War One Centennial Programme

6.       In preparation for the centenary Council is underway with restoration and upgrades to cenotaphs, war graves and memorials. Under development is a regional First World War Heritage Trail as well as planning for the “Our Boys” project.

The Auckland Heritage Festival

7.       This year’s festival ran from the 28th September to the 13th October and had 245 events across three themes.

Seismic risks of council property

8.       Property has developed and applied a priortisation framework to assess the seismic risks of their council service portfolio (ACPD). This has included, where known, heritage and unreinforced masonry buildings.

Heritage Property

9.       This report updates Councillors on progress with purchases under the Built Heritage Acquisition Fund and sites under consideration.

10.     Auckland Council Property Limited is in discussions with the owner of the St James Theatre site and progress on the Lopdell Precinct redevelopment is on track.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      receive the report.

 

 

Discussion

Pre 1944 Overlay

11.        The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (2013) (PAUP) introduces a pre-1944 Building Demolition Control overlay, which is partly in legal effect from 30th September 2013. The overlay is a map layer in the PAUP with associated objectives, policies, rules and assessment criteria. This overlay applies to areas in Auckland identified as having been settled pre-1944. It does not include those pre-1944 settlement areas already subject to the Special Character overlay nor does it include isolated pre-1944 buildings that fall outside areas covered by this overlay.

12.     The overlay proposes a precautionary approach to demolishing residential and non-residential buildings. This is to address concerns that unscheduled historic heritage buildings and places, or groups of special character buildings that contribute to the streetscape or character of a neighbourhood, will be lost before an evaluation is done. Once an evaluation has been done, additional historic heritage or special character areas may be added to the Unitary Plan and this overlay amended by a plan change.

13.     The overlay control has two components, historic heritage and special character. Legal advice is that the historic heritage component has immediate effect as it is a section 6 RMA matter. The special character component which is a section 7 RMA matter however does not have immediate legal effect.

14.     Resource consent is required for the removal, total demolition or substantial demolition (more than 30 per cent by volume) of any building constructed prior to 1944 within the overlay. Through the resource consent process, the building is assessed to determine whether it would meet the historic heritage scheduling criteria in the PAUP. If it does, then the application could be declined. If it does not, then the application would be granted consent.  Once the PAUP becomes operative (i.e. after the hearing and release of decisions) an assessment will also be required to establish whether the building is part of a special character area and should be retained.

15.     Officers have focused on developing a workable assessment process which involves a preliminary heritage assessment being undertaken within two working days. Should this preliminary assessment indicate that there may be heritage values then a more comprehensive assessment is undertaken.

16.     In order to support the layer before the PAUP hearings process, it is necessary to undertake a more comprehensive area by area survey than was possible prior to notification. In Brisbane where a similar control was introduced this detailed survey took 10 years. The PAUP hearing timetable will necessitate a faster process than what Brisbane underwent hence the survey work needs to be focused on what can be achieved in the time available.

17.     In the 2014/15 Annual Plan process an investment proposal has been submitted for additional resources to undertake the pre 1944 survey work.  With these additional resources it will be possible to survey for special character with some identification of specific historic heritage sites possible. Site by site assessments for historic heritage will require longer timeframes than the PAUP hearings process allows.

Heritage Surveys

18.     The Auckland Heritage Survey Programme has been developed to identify important heritage across the region for protection, celebration, and future investment.  The research results in a list of places and areas that are of historical interest, which leads to many positive outcomes, including opportunities for interpretation, tailored incentives, new special character areas, and evaluations for scheduling in the Unitary Plan. 

19.     Pilot projects have already been completed in Māngere, Ōtāhuhu, Onehunga, and Balmoral areas. This year additional surveys are underway in the Pukekohe area as well as a survey of state housing in the region.

20.     The Pukekohe survey will provide an input into the area spatial plan process underway.  This will focus on wider area than that covered by the pre 1944 overlay and include historic heritage as well as special character.

21.     The PAUP includes within the pre 1944 overlay a large number of properties owned by Housing New Zealand. To evaluate these sites and areas work is about to commence on a region wide State Housing thematic survey.

22.     In conjunction with the local board a heritage survey is being scoped out for the Pt Chevalier area and likely to commence before the end of this calendar year.  A similar time frame is proposed to undertake a survey of the pre 1944 area in Papatoetoe.

23.     Heritage staff are also supporting a Maori Cultural heritage study for the Three Kings precinct plan and Manukau Harbour Foreshore survey.

The World War One Centennial Programme

24.     The First World War was one of the most significant events of the 20th Century and had a seismic impact on New Zealand. Auckland Council has recognised the importance of the centennial with the appointment of the WWI Commemorations Political Steering Group. This is chaired by Local Board member Sandra Coney.

25.     The Heritage Unit is the lead unit within Council with input from Parks, Libraries, Events and other Council areas as required. In conjunction with the Ministry of Heritage and Culture and the WW100 Programme office and Auckland Institutions such as Auckland War Memorial Museum, staff are developing the Councils commemorations events as well as providing where possible coordination of other parties events. As an example – officers met with Minister of Heritage and Culture last week and are working with them as well as the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Auckland War Memorial Museum on hosting the national event around the capture of German Samoa, NZ's first action of WWI.

26.     In preparation for the centenary we are already underway with restoration and upgrades to cenotaphs, war graves and memorials. Under development is a regional First World War Heritage Trail as well as planning for the “Our Boys” project, a research guide to help Aucklanders to research soldiers and others in their communities who served and were affected by the First World War.

The Auckland Heritage Festival

27.     This year’s festival ran from the 28th September to the 13th October and had 245 events across three themes. The main theme was Auckland’s Waterways – land and sea, which celebrates that with two magnificent coastlines, three major harbours, and the islands of the Hauraki Gulf. This water theme drew an enthusiastic response, with over 60 events that explore and celebrate our relationship with the sea.

28.     The second and third themes of the festival were celebrating our heritage and learning and encouragement. Each theme had a range of events which celebrate our built, cultural and natural heritage showcased through documentaries, displays, walks and much more.

Seismic risks of council property

29.     Property has developed and applied a priortisation framework to assess the seismic risks of their council service portfolio (ACPD). This has included, where known, heritage and unreinforced masonry buildings. A partnership project has been established with the University of Auckland Engineering School (UoA) which has provided both resources and expertise for the programme management and assessment phases of the project. To date 277 buildings have been identified within the ACPD portfolio potentially having heritage or URM designation with 119 (43%) having been assessed to some degree. From the initial assessments only 29 buildings require more detailed assessments to assist in planning for the future of those buildings. Once the more detailed assessments have been completed potential retro-fit solutions will be examined with the heritage team and the UoA.

 

 

Heritage Property Update

Heritage Acquisition Fund

30.     Council has acquired two properties under the acquisition fund, the Thomas Doo (Wong Doo) building and Airedale cottages. Redevelopment of the Thomas Doo building will commence in the new year. The sale of Airedale cottages to a private party, who has agreed to undertake restoration, is almost completed.

31.     Negotiations to purchase Guys Homestead in Manukau resulted in a third party agreeing to buy the site and restore the derelict building.

32.     Discussions are still continuing on the Voss Yacht building yard in Wynyard quarter and on Carlile House.

33.     Hobsonville Land Company (HLC) has made application for funding from the Built Heritage Acquisition Fund (BHAF).  Funding is to be used for the restoration and commercialization of five buildings, with heritage value, as part of the larger Hobsonville Landing redevelopment project, Hobsonville Point. The greater Hobsonville Point area is currently being developed into a large residential sub-division.

34.     Review of the HCL application to date, by Auckland Council (Finance, Legal and Property), identified the need for HLC to provide further information to enabled informed decision making by Auckland Council.  In October 2014, Auckland Council requested further information of HLC, including:

a)   A business case with detailed financial projections and estimates - with detailed requirements set out as per requirements of our Finance Department.

b)   Business case justification for retail turnover to support, rental, operating, business expenses and gross realisation values, etc., used within the feasibility.

c)   A tenure proposal from HLC to identify land acquisition options to secure AC investment

 

St James Theatre

35.     A number of options have been considered for the acquisition and restoration of the St James Theatre, both as a standalone acquisition and alternatively inclusive of the acquisition of adjacent properties.

36.     Currently Auckland Council Property Limited is in discussions with the owner of the St James Theatre site. We understand at this stage that the discussions focus on the possible standalone acquisition of the St James Theatre.

Lopdell Precinct Redevelopment

37.     The $20 million redevelopment of the historic Lopdell House and proposed new Art Gallery in Titirangi is a partnership project between Auckland Council and the Lopdell House Development Trust (LHDT), to deliver a quality arts, theatre and cultural community complex.

38.     The project consists of four stages:

Stage 1 - New Car Park Deck

Stage 2 -Lopdell Hall Refurbishment

Stage 3 –Seismic Upgrade and heritage restoration

Stage 4 - New Gallery Construction

39.     Construction is currently on schedule with a handover of Lopdell House proposed by the end of January 2014.

40.     The site will remain a construction site until the end of February as the restaurant is likely to need 4 to 6 weeks fit out.  Art users will progressively relocate to Lopdell House subject to existing commitments and logistics.

41.     Lopdell Gallery will be handed over by end of June 2014. It is likely the new gallery will be occupied in August, as there will be significant fit out work by the gallery prior to occupation.

42.     From an operations perspective the following has occurred or is underway:

·    A charter has been developed for the precinct with input from Art users.

·    The governance model has been agreed.

·    A facility manager is being recruited for the facility to manage the operations and promote the facility.

·    Work is underway to find suitable commercial tenants for the restaurant (ground floor) and office spaces (second floor)

·    Brand/imaging work will commence to create a Lopdell precinct brand.

·    It is agreed that a soft and low key opening of Lopdell House would be appropriate followed by a major opening of Lopdell Precinct when the new gallery is ready.

Consideration

Local Board Views

43.     No consultation was required for the preparation of this report.

Maori Impact Statement

44.     Heritage is of fundamental importance to tangata whenua, their culture and traditions. Sites of significance to tangata whenua are an important part of their heritage, established through whakapapa.  The activities identified in the report will have varying degrees of impact upon Maori and staff will engage directly with Maori where appropriate.  Where these matters are reported separately to council, then issues affecting Maori are specifically covered. As a summary of the unit’s activities, this report does not address these matters specifically. Where appropriate, staff in the Heritage Unit engage with Maori on particular projects and/or advise other departments where activities may impact upon Maori heritage values.

Implementation Issues

45.     There are no implementation issues at this stage.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Authors

Noel Reardon - Manager, Heritage

Authorisers

Ludo Campbell-Reid - Environmental Strategy & Policy Manager

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

 


Auckland Development Committee

28 November 2013

 

Auckland Plan Annual Implementation Update 2013/2014

 

File No.: CP2013/26217

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is to introduce the Auckland Plan Annual Implementation Update.

Executive Summary

2.       This is the second Auckland Plan Annual Implementation Update (AIU) and covers the time period from June 2012 to November 2013. 

3.       The purpose of the AIU is to report progress on the implementation of the Auckland Plan (the Plan) over approximately a twelve month time period.  It recognises key achievements and challenges, and identifies areas of focus for the next 12 months.

4.       This AIU is set out in two main sections.  Part One provides a high-level account of key implementation areas that cover both the operational and planning activities of council.  This section also provides comment on wider factors that influence the delivery of the plan external to Auckland Council such as central government, legislative changes and the changing economy.

5.       Part two of the AIU is structured around each of the thirteen strategic directions of the Plan.

6.       There has been good progress implementing the Plan at both a planning and project level.  Council, in conjunction with central government and other key stakeholders, has responded to the challenges identified in the Plan in areas such as housing and transport. 

7.       The Children and Young People’s Action Plan, the smoke free policy and free casual swim access for people aged 16 ensure council is engaged with communities.

8.       Over the next 12-18 months there will be considerable focus on further embedding the Auckland Plan into council. Planning for the 2015/2025 Long Term Plan presents further opportunity to align the spending of council to strategic outcomes sought by the Auckland Plan.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      request that the report be circulated to the Local Boards, Council Controlled Organisation’s and the Independent Maori Statutory Board.

c)      provide feedback on the Auckland Plan Annual Implementation Update from this committee early in the new year.

 

 

Discussion

9.       The Auckland Plan was launched by the Mayor on 29 May 2012.

10.     The Auckland Plan Implementation Addendum, adopted as part of the Auckland Plan, established a review process that included the Annual Implementation Update. 

11.     The AIU helps to ensure council meets its obligations under Section 79(3)(d) of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Act (2010) which states the Auckland Plan will ’provide a basis for aligning implementation plans, regulatory plans, and funding programmes of the Auckland Council.”  A key role of the AIU is to monitor progress in this area. 

12.     This second Annual Implementation Update (AIU) of the Auckland Plan, circulated prior to this meeting, focuses on measures and processes put in place by Auckland Council and other stakeholders to ensure the Plan can be successfully implemented. This update indicates good alignment and progress on a number of important projects, strategies and policies that will give effect to the Auckland Plan. It provides a baseline for future updates and provides guidance on key areas to focus on in the year ahead. 

13.     An update for all actions in the Auckland Plan is also provided as part of this AIU.

Consideration

Local Board Views

14.     Local Boards have not been directly consulted on this report. They will however receive a copy of the AIU and it is anticipated any feedback provided will help to inform the next AIU.

15.     Feedback has been sought from Local Board services in regard to the coding of Local Board spending against the six transformational shifts.  They support this approach in principle and will look to include it in the development of the Local Board Plans.

Maori Impact Statement

16.     Whilst, the Auckland Plan includes a specific chapter on Māori the interests of Māori are across all aspects of the Auckland Plan. For this reason, the AIU reports on the involvement and interests of Mana Whenua throughout.

17.     Te Waka Angamua has been involved in compiling the Māori chapter of the Auckland Plan.

18.     The Independent Maori Statutory Board (IMSB) has been kept informed throughout the development of the AIU through meetings and providing their feedback on particular sections of the AIU.  Work with Te Waka Angamua and IMSB is ongoing to ensure alignment between the Auckland Plan and Māori outcomes including the identification of expenditure against Transformational Shift six of the Auckland Plan.

General

19.     Limited consultation has occurred with external stakeholders on the final form of the AIU, although this was undertaken to some degree by council officers when writing the chapter reports. This is an area for improvement moving towards the next AIU.

Implementation Issues

20.     The AIU is undertaken within budgets approved through the LTP. The AIU will help to inform future financial and resourcing requests.

21.     There are no legal or legislative issues associated with implementing the recommendations in this report.

22.     There are no other implementation issues

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

2013 AIU Final

147

b

AIU Final Addendum

151

Signatories

Authors

Richard Hughes - Team Leader Auckland Plan

Authorisers

Grant Barnes - Manager - Auckland Strategy and Research

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

 


Auckland Development Committee

28 November 2013

 


 


Auckland Development Committee

28 November 2013

 











































Auckland Development Committee

28 November 2013

 

Update on recent submissions regarding offshore petroleum exploration

 

File No.: CP2013/26567

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To provide an update on recent submissions made by Auckland Council regarding offshore petroleum exploration.

Executive Summary

2.       There has been some confusion in the media recently regarding the council’s submissions to the government on offshore petroleum exploration proposals.  It was implied that the council had approved an application for exploratory drilling.  The council has not received any applications to undertake exploration but has submitted on several government proposals with implications for offshore drilling.  

3.       This report presents a summary of four recent submissions:

1) New Zealand block offer 2014 – proposal for petroleum exploration permit round.  This proposal identified several onshore and offshore areas to be open for the exploration permit tender round in 2014 under the Crown Minerals Act.  Council’s submission sought that the areas be amended to be at least 12 nautical miles offshore and that environmental concerns be taken into account.

2) Activity classifications under the EEZ Act.  The government sought comment on how various activities, including exploratory drilling for oil and gas, should be classified in regulations under the EEZ Act.  The council submission did not support the classification of such drilling as non-notified discretionary.

3) Petroleum management guidelines for local government.  MfE is developing guidelines to assist councils with little experience in regulating oil and gas activities under the RMA.  Our submission on the draft guidelines highlighted various deficiencies with the document, including inadequate consideration of offshore exploration and extraction.

4) Proposed variation to the West Coast North Island Marine Mammal Sanctuary. The government proposed that the offshore extent of the sanctuary be increased around Taranaki.  The council’s submission reiterated our previous position that the sanctuary should be 12 nautical miles along its length and that it should include a ban on oil and gas drilling.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      Receives the report.

 

 

Discussion

4.       There has been recent interest in expanding offshore petroleum drilling around New Zealand.  At present, such drilling occurs only off the coast of Taranaki.  The first deep-sea drilling operation in New Zealand will soon commence 100 nautical miles offshore from Raglan in the Taranaki Basin.  There has been considerable concern in the community regarding this development.

5.       Basins to the west of Auckland have similar geology to offshore Taranaki and it is possible that exploration may expand into this area in future.

6.       The government has been promoting such expansion around New Zealand and has developed several proposals to support exploration or to manage its environmental effects.

7.       Auckland Council has been following these proposals and has provided feedback on several areas, either through formal submissions or through officer-level comments.  This report presents a summary of feedback provided in the last few months.

8.       Petroleum exploration and extraction is managed by various agencies under different legislation as shown in figure 1.

Figure 1 Oil and gas regulation in New Zealand.

 

New Zealand Block offer 2014 – proposal for petroleum exploration permit round

9.       On 14 November the governing body approved a submission to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) on the block offer 2014 proposals.   The submission period coincided with the local government elections and it was not possible to use the usual process of reporting to local boards and council committees.

10.     The block offer process is an annual tendering round used by the government to seek applications for exploration permits under the Crown Minerals Act.  The first stage in the process is to seek iwi and local government input on the various spatial areas to be open for tenders.

11.     The block offer 2014 proposals include extensive areas to the west of Auckland.  The areas are at least 6 nautical miles from the coast.  They are mainly located in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), but do extend into the territorial sea (within 12 nautical miles of the coast) which is managed by Auckland Council under the Resource Management Act.

12.     The council’s submission noted that petroleum drilling has various environmental risks that are of low likelihood but high consequence.  In Auckland, these relate to effects of exploration operations on Maui’s dolphins and to the chance of well blow-outs and oil spills.  Environmental risks are primarily managed under the RMA or Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act (EEZ Act).  These concerns were raised in the submission to ensure they were considered before any location or technological options are finalised.  The environmental management capability of applicants is also one of the matters considered in assessing tenders.

13.     Now that the block offer submission period has closed, the block offer areas will be finalised by the New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals unit of MBIE.  The tender round will be open for bids from April to September 2014.  Companies will be able to bid for one or more of the grids within the block offer area up to a maximum of 2,500 km2 in the offshore Taranaki Basin and up to 10,000 km2 in the other offshore areas.  It is expected that the announcement of permit grants would be in December 2014, for commencement from April 2015.

14.     Once the bids are assessed, exploration permits would be issued and would run for up to 15 years from the commencement date.  Permit holders are required to report on their iwi engagement activity and to meet high health, safety and environmental standards.

15.     Exploration activities include seismic surveys, sampling, aeromagnetic surveys, exploratory drilling, and geological studies, compiling reports and data analysis.  This work helps identify places within the permit area that are most likely to contain commercially recoverable amounts of oil and gas.  Once a discovery is made, the permit holder has to decide whether it is economic to apply for a mining permit to develop the resource.

16.     The council’s submission sought that the following changes be made to the block offer 2014 proposals:

a)   Amend the boundaries of the Reinga Northland Basin and Offshore Taranaki Basin block offer areas so that they are at least 12 nautical miles offshore.  This avoids a greater range of the Maui’s dolphin habitat.

b)   Ensure that exploration activities adhere to the Department of Conservation’s guidelines for minimising acoustic disturbance to marine mammals, including within 20 nautical miles of the Marine Mammal Sanctuary.

c)   In recognition of the sensitivity of potentially impacted areas, take action to ensure that risks of oil spills and other discharges are minimised, particularly in areas close to the coast.

d)   Continue to keep iwi and local authorities informed of the permitting process and, where appropriate, share analysis and data between the Crown Minerals Act and Resource Management Act processes.

Activity classifications under the EEZ Act

17.     On 26 September the governing body approved a submission to the Ministry for the Environment on ‘Activity classifications under the EEZ Act – a discussion document on the regulation of exploratory drilling, discharges of harmful substances and dumping of waste in the Exclusive Economic Zone and continental shelf’.

18.     Currently under the EEZ Act, activities may be classified as permitted, discretionary or prohibited. The government is seeking to add a new category of ‘non-notified discretionary’ through a supplementary order paper to the Marine Legislation Bill currently before Parliament.   This classification would limit notification so that only iwi and existing interests are notified of an application and decision. 

19.     The discussion document sought feedback on the proposed classification of various activities in the EEZ, including the classification of activities as non-notified discretionary.  After the Bill is passed, the Minister for the Environment will recommend that the Governor-General classify activities through regulations.

20.     The council’s submission stated that the council did not support the proposal to classify exploratory drilling for oil and gas as non-notified discretionary.  The discussion document lacked clarity on how the risks associated with this activity would be assessed and managed. This includes concerns around the capacity for adequate monitoring and auditing of compliance with consent conditions and ability to respond to an oil spill, should this occur.  The submission sought that exploratory petroleum drilling be classified as a discretionary activity. This allows for councils and public to make submissions on what appropriate conditions for consent are, and to ensure consistency when there are cross-boundary applications.

21.     The submission also stated that if exploratory drilling is classified as a non-notified discretionary activity, there is a need for a process whereby regional councils (or unitary authorities) and iwi are consulted on what conditions would apply to the consent and how compliance with the consent would be monitored.  This would give councils the ability to check for consistency with their policies and with conditions for consent for similar activities.

22.     With regard to other proposals in the discussion document, the council submission recommended that:

a)    the proposed definition of harmful substances should be amended to align with that in the Resource Management (Marine Pollution) Regulations 1998 and Maritime Protection Rules

b)   the permitted activity conditions for discharges – sediments should match the conditions set for similar activities under the RMA

c)   definitions should be developed for ‘production water discharges’, ‘operational chemical discharges’, and ‘discharges of drilling fluids from oil and gas operations during the exploratory stage’

d)   the discharge and dumping activities listed should be classified as discretionary rather than non-notified discretionary as proposed. 

Petroleum management guidelines for local government

23.     Council officers provided feedback to MfE on 1 November 2013 on a draft guideline ‘managing environmental effects of petroleum development activities (including hydraulic fracturing): guidelines for local government’.  The feedback was of a technical nature and did not have council sign-off due to the time constraints and lack of a formed committee.

24.     The draft guidelines were produced to assist councils in areas with little experience in developing policy or processing permit applications for petroleum exploration and extraction under the RMA.  They draw heavily on examples of regulating such activities in Taranaki.

25.     The draft guidelines provide a useful overview of the different aspects of petroleum development activities and how they may trigger different consent requirements.  They almost exclusively focused on activities on land and had only brief mentions of activities in the coastal marine area.

26.     The council’s feedback highlighted this deficiency and noted that several of the proposed block offer areas were offshore.  There are several sections of the guidelines that need considerable expansion to be useful for guiding the management of offshore development.

27.     Other matters raised in the feedback related to topics that needed further clarification and to gaps in the material presented.  There were several sections that described the management or potential effects of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in oil shale reserves but did not go into the same level of detail regarding other types of petroleum extraction (for example non-fractured wells and coal seam gas extraction).  The guidelines focused on well development activities on land and had little consideration of what happens to the gas or oil once it leaves the well-head (for example trunk lines and gas and water gathering lines) or of effects related to well production and decommissioning. 

 

 

28.     Overall, the council officers considered that the document lacked a clear scope and did not provide sufficient technical or RMA planning guidance.  It gave a high level overview which did not include any international best practice or ‘whole life cycle of well development’ information.

 

Proposed variation to the West Coast North Island Marine Mammal Sanctuary

29.     On 7 October 2013 council officers made a submission to the Department of Conservation on the proposed variation to the West Coast North Island Marine Mammal Sanctuary.  This was the local government election week and the submission presented positions already adopted by the council in its submission to the Maui’s dolphin threats management plan review in November 2012.

30.     The submission applauded the government for deciding that fisheries threats should be appropriately managed via the Marine Mammals Protection Act by DOC.  At present, fisheries impacts on biodiversity are managed through the Fisheries Act.

31.     The submission did not support the off-shore distance options for the area off-shore of Taranaki as they did not go far enough.  The submission reiterated our previous position that the set-netting ban should apply to 12 nautical miles throughout the marine mammal sanctuary.

32.     The council’s November 2012 submission stated:

The Auckland Council would like to see the Marine Mammal Sanctuary (MMS) fully protect Maui’s and Hector’s dolphins along the entire west coast north to Maunganui Bluff. Comments on various activities below therefore refer to this broader range than what is opted in the paper. This should include a full ban on wide-scale iron-sand mining, oil and gas production and the drilling and seismic survey exploration for these. The sanctuary should extend to 12 nm along its length. We further believe that the Minister of Conservation should be the primary decision maker regarding fisheries controls with a paradigm of biodiversity protection being the primary driver, not fisheries management.

33.     The council’s submission also expressed concern at the delays in decision making regarding Maui’s and Hector’s dolphins.  It was expected that the threat management plan would be finalised by December 2012 but this has still not occurred, one year after submissions closed. 

Consideration

Local Board Views

34.     The submission period for the block offer proposals coincided with the local authority election and it was not possible to report the matter to local board meetings.  Local board feedback was included in the submissions on the activity classifications under the EEZ Act and the Marine Mammal Sanctuary variation.

Maori Impact Statement

35.     Input from iwi representatives was sought for the submissions on the block offer 2014, the activity classifications under the EEZ Act and the Marine Mammal Sanctuary submission.

General

36.     There has been significant public and media interest in the proposals for oil and gas exploration around New Zealand.

Implementation Issues

37.     The submission periods for the various proposals noted have all closed.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Authors

Kath Coombes - Principal Specialist Coastal

Authorisers

Ludo Campbell-Reid - Environmental Strategy & Policy Manager

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

 


Auckland Development Committee

28 November 2013

 

Proposed private Plan Change 42 - Albany centre Business 11 zoning amendments

 

File No.: CP2013/26032

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       This report advises the Committee of a private plan change request that seeks to amend the Business 11 zoning provisions at the Albany metropolitan centre, to better provide for residential development at ground floor, in the Business 11 A subzone. It goes on to request that the Committee accept and process the plan change, concluding that the request is not considered to be contrary to ‘sound resource management’.

Executive Summary

2.       A private plan change ‘request’ has been received and a ‘process’ decision is required. The committee may also consider adopting the request, or could require the applicant to proceed via a resource consent process. A request can only be rejected on limited, specific grounds.

3.       The recommendation is to ‘accept’ the plan change and proceed to notify it early next year. The issues and effects of the plan change have been addressed in the request sufficiently enough for the Council and the public to understand the plan change, and for submitters to be informed and involved.

4.       The request affects the Business 11 zoning provisions at the Albany metropolitan centre, and primarily seeks to enable residential development at ground floor in specified (rezoned) areas. The current operative Plan provisions require commercial and retail activities at ground floor, with residential above, promoting a mixed use environment.

5.       Various technical assessments accompany the request. These are in the process of being peer reviewed, to help answer questions that the request generates pertaining to the appropriateness of the District Plan modifications and the environmental outcomes that may be generated.

6.       The Upper Harbour Local Board considered the request on 12 November 2013 and has advised of various concerns it requires to be addressed, which include the loss of business land capacity, traffic and parking issues, open space demands, and the potential precedent effect for other ‘mixed use’ areas.

7.       Consultation with iwi by the applicant has commenced, and a status report will be provided at the meeting.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      Accept and process the private plan change request by Albany City Development Corporation Ltd (PPC 42) seeking to enable ground floor residential development in the Business 11A and 11B zones of the Albany metropolitan centre, as provided for under Clause 25 of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991, and endorse the intention to publicly notify the request early in 2014.

 

 


 

Discussion

Introduction

8.       Albany Centre Development Corporation Ltd (ACDCL) has requested that the operative District Plan (North Shore section) be changed to enable residential development at ground floor in certain parts of the existing Business 11A and 11B zones at the Albany metropolitan centre – refer to location map, Attachment A. The operative provisions require that commercial and retail uses be at ground floor and that residential development be above ground. Currently only the Business 11C subzone zone of the metropolitan centre allows residential at ground floor as a permitted land use activity.

9.       The letter of introduction to the plan change is attached as Attachment B, and the actual plan change document is Attachment C. The planning report (and Section 32) to the request is attached in three parts (Attachments D, E & F). The technical appendices to the planning report are available on request.

10.     Staff consider the plan change request is accompanied by a comprehensive evaluation which is sufficient for affected persons and the public to understand the likely effects of the plan change. The technical assessments of the request are in the process of being peer-reviewed by Council-appointed experts toward an eventual hearing. These assessments may generate a need for further information from the applicant, but no further information is required to make the ‘process’ decision recommended.

Statutory considerations

11.     Clause 25 of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) requires that Council make a decision to accept, reject or adopt (as its own) the plan change. It outlines specific criteria by which a ‘reject’ decision might be made. Staff do not consider these apply, as addressed below, and that the request can and should be accepted and publicly notified.

12.     The decision required at this stage is a procedural one. Council must decide whether the request should be accepted, rejected or adopted. Clause 25 stipulates the matters of relevance to this ‘process’ decision:

(2) The local authority may either:

(a)       Adopt the request, or part of the request, as if it were a proposed ….. plan made by the local authority itself; …………..or

(b)       Accept the request, in whole or in part, and proceed to notify the request……

(3)     The local authority may decide to deal with the request as if it were an application for a resource consent…...;

(4)        The local authority may reject the request in whole or in part, but only on the grounds                    that:

(a)      The request or part of the request is frivolous or vexatious; or

(b)      The substance of the request or part of the request has been considered and given effect to or rejected by the local authority or Environment Court within the last 2 years; or

(c)      The request or part of the request is not in accordance with sound resource management practice; or

(d)      The request or part of the request would make the policy statement or plan inconsistent with Part 5; or

(e)      The policy statement or plan has been operative for less than 2 years.

 

13.     The matters which can be considered as a basis for rejecting the request in whole or in part are limited to the matters set out in Clause 25(4)(a) to (e) inclusive, and do not extend to the full merits of what is requested. A substantive assessment is not required or appropriate at this point in the process.

14.     The term “sound resource management practice” is not defined in any statute.  The High Court in Malory Corporation Limited v Rodney District Council (CIV-2009-404-005572) has considered this term in the light of clause 25(4)(c) above and states:

“… the words “sound resource management practice” should, if they are to be given any coherent meaning, be tied to the Act’s purpose and principles. I agree too with the [Environment] Court’s observation that the words should be limited to only a coarse scale merits assessment, and that a private plan change which does not accord with the Act’s purposes and principles will not cross the threshold for acceptance or adoption.”

 

15.     The assessment made by staff to date is that the request satisfies the relevant threshold tests of the Act and should be ‘accepted’ and processed to a full merits (substantive) decision by way of a hearing of any submissions received. The plan change is seeking a change of activity status for ‘residential’ at ground floor in the Business 11A and 11B subzones, with the aim of enabling “a residential community of sufficient critical mass to deliver the Council’s objectives of a truly metropolitan centre at Albany”. The retail-focused ‘mainstreet’ would remain intact.

16.     The request is not seeking anything that is inconsistent with the Act’s purpose or principles. The request affects District Plan provisions that have been operative for well over 2 years, and seeks to change these provisions in a way that could advance the Council’s objectives for the growth of the Albany metropolitan centre (provided potential adverse effects do not eventuate). The ‘substance of the request’, being residential at ground floor in the subject areas, has not been considered formally by Council in recent years, and the request is not at all ‘frivolous’, but raises issues and questions that staff accept are due for reconsideration. Accordingly, the recommendation is that the request be accepted so that it can be notified and submissions called for.

Nature of plan change request

17.     The applicant’s primary justification for the plan change is that because necessary residential development is not occurring at the metropolitan centre, a ‘different planning response’ is justified, one that will “grow a residential community of sufficient critical mass to deliver the Council’s objectives of a truly metropolitan centre at Albany”.

18.     The detailed plan change provisions proposed are relatively minor. The affected areas are proposed to be rezoned with two new Business 11 subzones, being 11E and 11F  - refer to Attachment C.

19.     The ‘mainstreet’ outcome of the Operative Plan would be carried through in the new Business 11F zone: Retail activities at ground floor in this zone would still be required, and residential development non-complying (other than ground floor access to residential units). The Business 11E zone would have similar provisions to the operative Business 11A zone, but enable residential at ground floor (as is the case in the operative Business 11C zone). A resource consent application would still be required, enabling Council to consider the design and quality of developments.

20.     The plan change request proposes minor changes to the “Albany Centre - structure plan” (Appendix 10 District Plan maps) which subdivision and development is to conform with: some of the locations for the required ‘landmark’ (or gateway) developments fronting major or minor road intersections are proposed to be changed. These gateway (apartment typology) developments create opportunities for commercial activities at ground floor, in convenient and business-friendly locations.

 

21.     The planning report of the request summarises and argues for the plan change request as follows (Introduction, paragraphs 1.3, 1.4 and 1.8):

This private plan change request seeks to modify the development controls of the Business 11 zone to provide greater opportunity for residential development within the mixed use parameters of the Business 11 zone. The …change proposes a refinement to the existing controls …(and) does not propose wholesale change to the Council’s goals, strategic objectives and policy direction for the integrated management of business activities.

Albany City Centre was originally envisaged as a major metropolitan centre for the North Shore to complement the Takapuna metropolitan centre. It was intended to provide for a broad range of….retail, business, residential and community activities. The reality is that while retail and business activity has flourished, no residential development has occurred in the city centre. This despite substantial portions of the Albany City Centre land being developed, with much land now committed to long term use.

If Albany is to achieve a balance of retail, business, residential and community facilities, then a different planning response is needed. This private plan change request promotes the development of a residential “quarter” or sub-precinct. This will give a residential heart to the …centre, and the opportunity to grow a residential community of sufficient critical mass to deliver the Council’s objectives of a truly metropolitan centre at Albany”.

22.     The planning report is accompanied by a number of supporting technical assessments, covering urban design, landscape, transport and traffic, and economic considerations. They provide all potentially affected parties with a full evaluation of the effects. All of these evaluations are now in the process of being peer-reviewed by Council-appointed experts.

23.     The plan change request states that the Albany metropolitan centre is approximately 157 hectares (including roads), of which 37 hectares is zoned Business 11. The land area subject to the private plan change request is 9.4 hectares or 6% of the total land area of the centre, and 25% of the area zoned Business 11.

24.     A key assessment forming part of the plan change request is the economic analysis carried out by Property Economics (its report forming Appendix G to the application). The analysis addresses the issue of the ‘loss’ of commercial, or mixed use land, to residential, and the implications for the centre and North Shore generally. The report refers to the significant supply of existing vacant commercial land at Albany, which, it is argued –

“…shows that even if Albany achieved 25% of (all of) North Shore’s commercial growth by 2026 at an average of three levels of commercial development, only 4 ha of vacant land would be required. Albany currently has 14 ha of vacant commercial land. There is over 50 years growth in the current business zoned land”.

This and other findings of the evaluations supporting the plan change request will be the subject of specialist peer review work.

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

25.     The notified Unitary Plan has largely carried over the operative provisions of the Auckland District Plan, into the ‘metropolitan’ business zone and the various precincts that overlay it. They will not achieve what the applicant now seeks, and the applicant will be making submissions to the Unitary Plan (in addition to actioning this request).

26.     It should be noted that the applicant had discussions with Council prior to the notification of the proposed Unitary Plan, seeking to incorporate the request into the plan. However, it was determined at that stage that the work required to fully evaluate the proposed changes could not be completed satisfactorily in the time available.

Consideration

Local Board Views

27.     The Upper Harbour Local Board considered the plan change request at its meeting on 12 November 2013 and resolved as follows (unconfirmed minutes):

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      confirms the process of the private plan change requested by Albany City Development Corporation Ltd (PPC 42) seeking to enable ground floor residential development in the Business 11A and 11B zones of the Albany metropolitan centre, and that this be advised to the Auckland Development Committee when it determines the matter.

b)      raises the following concerns should this plan change proceed and that technical work be done to address these issues:

i)   loss of business land capacity

ii)  reverse sensitivity

iii) noise concerns/complaints

iv) sufficient parking requirements given the change to residential use

v)  setting a precedent for other mixed use areas to be utilised for residential use only

vi) impact on the currently provided recreational space with this development potentially creating an increased demand

vii) increased traffic volumes and a change in the mix of traffic flows due to residential/commercial use.

c)      insists that its views are given appropriate weighting considering that the proposed plan change is within the Upper Harbour area.

d)      resolves that these resolutions be provided to governing body members Watson and Walker prior to consideration of this plan change at the Auckland Development Committee meeting of 28 November 2013.

e)      resolves that the above resolutions are forwarded to the Auckland Development Committee.

f)       requests speaking rights at the Auckland Development Committee meeting of 28 November 2013 to address its concerns”.

Maori Impact Statement

28.     The plan change, if it were to proceed to operative status, could enable a greater amount of residential development to occur more quickly at the Albany metropolitan centre. This would assist, in some small way, all Aucklanders, including Māori, seeking housing on the North Shore, by providing more choice in this location and potentially better affordability.

29.     The applicant has commenced communications with iwi groups but at the time of writing no specific feedback was available for reporting. A progress report will be provided to the Auckland Development Committee.

Implementation Issues

30.     A private plan change request would generally be ‘accepted’ by the Council, publicly notified and then proceed to a hearing. Once accepted, the Act provides for the plan change to be modified by the Council, with the applicant’s agreement, if necessary. This might be required to ensure the change is robust and functions as intended within the structure of the operative Plan.

 

 

31.     All costs of processing a private plan change application are borne by the applicant.

32.     A private plan change has no legal effect until, and only if, it becomes fully operative (at the end of the process).

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Location of affected sites - private plan change request at Albany

205

b

Letter of introduction - private plan change request Albany

207

c

Proposed (private) Plan Change document and maps

213

d

Planning report to private plan change request Albany (Pt 1)

229

e

Planning report (Pt 2)

265

f

Planning report (Pt 3)

281

     

Signatories

Authors

Ewen Patience - Principal Planner, Area Planning and Policy North

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

 


Auckland Development Committee

28 November 2013

 


Auckland Development Committee

28 November 2013

 






Auckland Development Committee

28 November 2013

 
















Auckland Development Committee

28 November 2013

 





































Auckland Development Committee

28 November 2013

 

















Auckland Development Committee

28 November 2013

 

















Auckland Development Committee

28 November 2013

 

Approval of Plan Change 33 – Business Built Heritage Areas – Auckland Council District Plan (North Shore section)

 

File No.: CP2013/26030

 

  

 

 Purpose

1.       This report seeks final approval from the Committee for Council’s Plan Change 33 to the North Shore section of the Auckland District Plan, to enable the plan change to become operative. The subtitle to the plan change is “Business Built Heritage Areas”.

Executive Summary

2.       Proposed Plan Change 33 introduced a set of ‘overlay’ controls to certain business-zoned areas of the oldest parts of urban North Shore, to address historic character values. It covers the Devonport town centre and various small commercial nodes in Devonport, Northcote Point and Birkenhead.

3.       Final approval of the Plan Change can now occur as there were no appeals to the decision within the appeal period (which ended on or about 3 October 2013).

4.       The notified operative date will be subject to completion of the District Plan text and map changes required.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      approve Plan Change 33 to the North Shore section of the Auckland District Plan, set out in full as Attachment A, in accordance with Clause 17 of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991.

b)      authorise the Manager North West Planning to complete the statutory processes under Clause 20 of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991 to make the Plan Change operative in the District Plan.

 

 

Discussion

5.       Plan Change 33 (Business Built Heritage Areas) introduced in July 2011 a set of overlay provisions to the business zonings of the oldest parts of urban North Shore, to address the management of historic character values (refer Attachment A). It covers the Devonport town centre and various small commercial nodes in Devonport, Northcote Point and Birkenhead. All the business zones are within residential areas that are zoned “Residential 3: Built Heritage”.

6.       The plan change is concerned with site to site issues, arising from major alterations and new developments within the subject sites, and also with interface issues arising from possible effects for adjoining Residential 3 properties. The ‘overlay’ provisions require a Discretionary consent application, and contain a comprehensive set of policies against which applications are to be evaluated. Consent is also required for the demolition of the most valued buildings within the overlay. Prior to this plan change, a ‘limited discretionary’ application was required for new developments, there were no controls on demolition, and there was an insufficient policy framework for evaluating effects on historic character values (as distinct from ‘historic heritage’ values).

7.       The hearing panel made a number of relatively minor changes to the notified plan change in response to submissions, and issued its decision in August 2013. There were no appeals in respect of that decision, and the plan change can now be approved and in due course notified as ‘operative’.

Consideration

Local Board Views

8.       The Local Boards do not have a role in the statutory processing of plan changes after the notification of a plan change (or the consideration of any Board submission). This report addresses only the final approval stage of the process, which this committee has sole responsibility for.

Maori Impact Statement

9.       This report addresses a procedural matter, the final step in the Resource Management Act’s plan change approval process. The following iwi groups were notified originally, and no submissions were received during the period: Ngati Paoa Whanau Trust (Mrs Hariata Gordon); Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority (Te Warena Taua); Te Runanga O Ngati Whatua (Hally Toia); Ngati Whatua O Orakei Maori Trust Board (Ngarimu Blair); Hauraki Maori Trust Board (Peter Te Moananui); Te Hao O Ngati Whatua (Mr Bill Kapea); Te Tinana O Ngati Whatua (Mrs Pamela Warner).

10.     Ngati Paoa Trust (Kaho Andrews) wrote to Council in July 2011 during the consultation period, prior to notification of the plan change. It advised that it was generally supportive of the plan change, but that “with regard to sites of significance on the ground and landscapes of where these buildings sit, that if in the event of earthworks and development on any of the sites we would expect to be provided with notification”. It is noted that the ‘notification’ referred to is managed by the Resource Consents department of Council. Ngati Paoa Trust did not lodge a formal submission during the notified submissions period.

General

11.     The notified Unitary Plan does not incorporate fully the provisions of Plan Change 33, and work is continuing to address this matter. The decision date (late August) and close of the appeal period (early October 2013) did not allow sufficient time to complete this work.

Implementation Issues

12.     There are no extraordinary implementation issues. However, the actual operative date will depend on the timing of completion of text and map updates, with two other North Shore plan changes being prepared for notification (as to operative date) at the same time.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Plan Change 33 for approval: Business Built Heritage Areas (North Shore)

299

     

Signatories

Authors

Ewen Patience - Principal Planner, Area Planning and Policy North

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

 


Auckland Development Committee

28 November 2013

 



































Auckland Development Committee

28 November 2013

 

Proposed Plan Change 14 (PC 14) Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) - To be made Operative

 

File No.: CP2013/25995

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To seek approval from the Auckland Development Committee to make part of Proposed Plan Change 14 (PC14) operative following the Environment Court approving a consent order for the Runciman Countryside Living zone.

Executive Summary

2.       PC14 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) was prepared to review the rural and coastal provisions of the Operative Franklin District Plan. The focus of PC14 included a strategic approach to growth management in the rural and coastal parts of the former Franklin District. PC14 was publicly notified on 30 September 2003.

 

3.      PC14 has been heard, decisions have been released and the majority of appeals resolved by mediation or Environment Court proceedings. Only one outstanding matter remains in relation to PC14. This is Variation 13 to PC14 which seeks to prohibit the transfer of subdivision rights from the Waikato District into Auckland. Variation 13 is yet to be heard by a panel of approved hearing commissioners.

 

4.         Following recent successful negotiations with appellants, the Environment Court issued a consent order on 8 October 2013 confirming a set of objectives, policies and rules for subdivision and development in the Runciman Countryside Living zone. The opportunity now exists to declare one of the last parts of PC14 operative.

 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)       approve in accordance with the consent order issued by the Environment Court dated 8 October that the Runciman Countryside Living provisions which form part of Proposed Plan Change 14 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section), be made operative in accordance with Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.

 

b)       authorise the Manager Planning South to co-ordinate the statutory processes required under Clause 20 to the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991, to make the Runciman Countryside Living zone provisions, being part of Proposed Plan Change 14 to the Operative Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) operative, including the determination of the operative date and notification date.

 

 

Discussion

5.      PC14 proposed district wide changes to the rural provisions of the Franklin District Plan, now referred to as the Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section), Waikato District Plan (Franklin Section) and Hauraki District Plan (Franklin Section).

 

6.      PC14 proposed a strategic approach to growth management in the rural and coastal parts of the former Franklin District. Key elements of PC14 included: the protection, restoration and enhancement of natural resources; the extension of existing and planned rural and coastal villages in a structured manner that supported nodal growth; and the provision for lifestyle choice in a manner that reduced pressure to urbanise productive rural land.

 

7.      PC14 was notified on 30 September 2003. A hearing for PC14 was held and decisions on submissions notified on 14 July 2006. PC14 decisions released by the former Franklin District Council amended the then Franklin District Plan topics that related to rural and coastal land use and subdivision. On 23 August 2007 the former Franklin District Council withdrew parts of PC14 due to concerns that there would be too many opportunities for countryside living. 

 

8.      Fifty seven appeals were received to PC 14 on a wide range of topics. The Environment Court processed the appeals on a topic by topic basis. In total the Environment Court processed appeals relating to seventy two topic areas. The Court initially settled appeal topics concerned with high level objectives and policies and then those pertaining to specific rules.

 

9.      Most appeal topics were resolved through consent orders and previously parts of PC14 have been made operative on 5 November 2010, 22 June 2011 and 16 October 2013. The most recent significant development has been the resolution of the Runciman Countryside Living rules. The Runciman Countryside Living zone was confirmed by the Environment Court on 12 May 2011. Appellants and Auckland Council have worked together to develop a set of objectives, policies and rules to manage subdivision and development in this zone. Following meditation agreement was reached with appellants on the content of a package of provisions for the Runciman Countryside Living zone. The Environment Court subsequently issued a consent order on the 8 October 2013.

 

10.    The specific parts of PC14 which can now be made operative include:

 

·    Part 17D Rural Countryside Living zone

·    Part 22 To provide for Rural Countryside Living zone subdivision

·    Part 23A To provide for Rural Countryside Living zone land use

·    Consequential changes to Part 2 (Managing District Resources), Part 15 (Activities throughout the District) and Schedule 2 (maps)

 

11.    PC14 can now be made fully operative with the exception of one rule and one definition which is the subject of Variation 13. Variation 13 to Proposed Plan Change 14, which seeks to prohibit the transfer of subdivision rights from the Waikato District into the Auckland Region, has yet to be heard by a joint hearings panel involving both Waikato District and Auckland Councils. A hearing panel of commissioners has been selected for Variation 13. It is anticipated that a hearing for Variation 13 will be held in the early part of 2014.

Consideration

Local Board Views

12.    This report addresses a procedural matter in making PC14 operative. The Franklin Local Board will be notified of PC14 becoming operative.

Maori Impact Statement

13.    This report addresses a procedural matter in making PC14 operative. Iwi were notified of PC 14 in accordance with Schedule 1 of the RMA. Iwi will be notified of PC14 becoming operative.

General

14.    Declaring PC14 operative is the last phase of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) process for the Plan Change.

Implementation Issues

15.    The recommendation to approve and make PC14 operative is consistent with council’s policies and strategies and does not trigger the significance policy.

 

16.    Pursuant to clause 17 of the First Schedule of the RMA, council can now approve PC14 and once approved, publicly notify the Plan Change as partly operative under Clause 20 of the First Schedule of the RMA.

 

17.    There will be some administrative costs involved in making the Plan Change operative and consequential updating of the Auckland District Plan (Franklin Section). These costs are provided for in the Regional and Local Planning Department’s budget.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Authors

Barry Mosley - Principal Planner South

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

 


Auckland Development Committee

28 November 2013

 

Request to make Proposed Plan Change 37 (Additions to Schedule 6B - Notable Trees and Stands of Trees to be Protection) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) operative

 

File No.: CP2013/26052

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       This report seeks approval from the Auckland Development Committee to make Proposed Plan Change 37 (Additions to Schedule 6B – Notable Trees and Stands of Trees to be Protected) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) operative in accordance with Clause 17 and Clause 20 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Executive Summary

2.       Council initiated Plan Change 37 (the plan change) to the Manukau Section of the Auckland Council District Plan (the District Plan) to add approximately 200 significant individual and groups of trees to Schedule 6B – Notable Trees and Stands of Trees to be Protected.

3.       The plan change was publicly notified on 12 December 2011 and following a hearing on submissions received, the council’s decision to approve the plan change was released on 1 November 2012. Two appeals were received, which have now been resolved.

4.       The Auckland Development Committee (the Committee) can now approve the plan change to be made operative and take full effect.

 

Recommendations

That the Auckland Development Committee:

(a)       in accordance with Consent Order (ENV-2012-AKL-000228) issued by the Environment Court, approve Proposed Plan Change 37 (Additions to Schedule 6B – Notable Trees and Stands of Trees to be Protected) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) to be made operative in accordance with Clause 17 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991

(b)       authorise the Manager, Planning South to complete the statutory process required to make Proposed Plan Change 37 (Additions to Schedule 6B – Notable Trees and Stands of Trees to be Protected) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) operative pursuant to Clause 20 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

 

 

Discussion

5.       Council initiated the plan change to update Schedule 6B by adding approximately 200 significant individual and groups of trees over 186 sites. These items were identified through a public nomination process. The plan change was initiated in response to the 1 January 2012 revocation of the general tree protection provisions under section 76(4A) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) which affected tree species within the urban environment listed in Schedule 6C – Species of Trees to be Protected. The intent of the plan change was to ensure that the District Plan continued to protect the most significant trees (both individual specimens and groups) in the urban areas of the former Manukau City Council area.

6.       The plan change was publicly notified on 12 December 2011. A total of 68 submissions and 144 further submissions were made in respect of the plan change. Following a hearing on submissions received, the council’s decision to approve the plan change was released on 1 November 2012.

7.       Two parties (Mr Wilkinson and Mr Van der Vliet) filed appeals to the council’s decision with the Environment Court (the Court). Mrs Jones was the only section 274 party to the Court process and in respect of the Van der Vliet appeal.

8.       Mr Van der Vliet subsequently withdrew his appeal relating to a Manna Gum tree at 14 Willow Way, Pakuranga and the Court accepted this on 13 May 2013. Officers updated the Hearing Committee about this matter on 21 June 2013.

9.       Mr Wilkinson’s appeal related to the removal of a group of Pohutukawa trees on his property from Schedule 6B. On 20 September 2013, the Hearings Committee endorsed officers’ recommendation for removal of the group from the schedule because of its deteriorating condition and risk to safety, and settling the appeal. The Consent Order (ENV-2012-AKL-000228) issued by the Court on 7 October 2013 reflects the agreed position of the parties.

10.     The Committee can now approve the plan change to be made operative and take full effect.

Consideration

Local Board Views

11.     The views of the Mangere-Otahuhu and Howick Local Boards (the boards) have not been sought for the purposes of this report, which addresses a procedural matter in making the plan change operative. The boards will be notified of the plan change becoming operative in the District Plan at the time that this occurs.

Maori Impact Statement

12.    All Iwi who associate with the Manukau area were sent letters providing an explanation of the plan change and were invited to make submissions. The Iwi consulted were Hauraki Maori Trust Board, Te Runanga o Ngati Wahtua, Ngati Whatua o Orakei Maori Trust Board, Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki Tribal Trust, Ngati Whanaunga Environment Unit, Te Runanga a Iwi o Ngati Tamatera, Te Ara Rangatu o Te Iwi o Ngati Te Ata Waiohua, Ngati Maru, Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority, Te Aakitai Waiohua Iwi Authority and Waikato Tainui Te Kauhanganui Inc.

13.    No submissions were received from Iwi nor were any issues identified through the hearing process relating to the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions. Iwi will be notified of the plan change becoming operative.

General

14.     There will be administrative costs involved in making the plan change operative and consequential updating of the District Plan. These costs would be met from the Regional and Local Planning Department’s budget.

Implementation Issues

15.     The recommendation to approve and make the plan change operative is consistent with the council’s policies and strategies and does not trigger the significance policy.

16.     Under Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the Act, council can now approve the plan change and once approved, notify the plan change as operative under Clause 20 of Schedule 1 of the Act.

17.     There are no significant implementation issues. There will be administration tasks to update the District Plan.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Authors

Vishal Chandra - Planner, Howick/Manurewa, Planning South, Regional and Local Planning.

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

 


Auckland Development Committee

28 November 2013

 

Private Plan Change 159 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) 2011 - Peninsula Golf Course Rezoning

 

File No.: CP2013/26073

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To recommend that Private Plan Change 159 - Peninsula Golf Course Rezoning is approved and made operative by the Council.

Executive Summary

2.       Private Plan Change 159 has been progressed through public notification and submissions, hearings and a decision released in March 2013.

3.       One appeal was received and that has been resolved by Environment Court Consent Order.

4.       Final approval of Private Plan Change 159 is now required by the Council under Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) to enable the plan change to become operative in the District Plan.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      approve Private Plan Change 159 - Peninsula Golf Course Rezoning to the District Plan, as set out in Attachment B to this report, pursuant to Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.

b)      authorise the Manager Planning North/West to complete the statutory processes under Clause 20 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 to make Private Plan Change 159 operative in the District Plan.

 

 

Discussion

5.       Private Plan Change 159 changes the zoning of the Peninsula Golf Course, Whangaparaoa from Future Urban to Medium Intensity Residential together with a modified scheduled activity to enable site specific higher intensity residential development. The development of the site under the Private Plan Change would enable the creation of up to 520 residential lots. The site is shown in Attachment A.

6.       On 8 August 2013 the Council released its decision on Private Plan Change 159 and approved the plan change with some minor amendments.

7.       One appeal was received and that was resolved by Environment Court Consent Order dated 11 November 2013. The appellant essentially sought that a 5 metre yard that was applied in the decision to part of the site along the eastern boundary, be extended south to front its boundary with the golf course site. The Consent Order approved the addition of the yard.

8.       All that remains is for the Auckland Development Committee to approve Private Plan Change 159 (as shown in Attachment B) pursuant to Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the RMA and authorise the Manager Planning North/West to complete the statutory processes under Clause 20 of the First Schedule to achieve operative status in the District Plan.

Consideration

Local Board Views

9.       The decisions requested on Private Plan Change 159 to the District Plan are not a matter for the delegated authority of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board. Consequently the views of the Local Board have not been sought.

Maori Impact Statement

10.     The proponent of the plan change consulted with:

·    Ngati Whatua Nga Rima O Kaipara

·    Ngati Manuhiri

·    Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority.

11.     Iwi were directly advised of the plan change as part of the statutory notification process. Ngati Whatua are happy to enter into a working arrangement to assist PLDL in ensuring that proper protocol and procedures are followed. No response was received from the other two iwi.

General

12.     The recommendation to approve and make operative Private Plan Change 159 - Peninsula Golf Course Rezoning is consistent with the Council’s policies and strategies and does not trigger the significance policy.

13.     The decisions requested on Private Plan Change 159 fall within the Auckland Development Committee’s delegated authority.

Implementation Issues

14.     There will be some administrative costs associated with making Private Plan Change 159 operative and consequential updating of the District Plan.  These costs are provided for in the Regional and Local Planning departmental budget.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Locality Plan

343

b

Plan Change 159

345

     

Signatories

Authors

Dave Paul - Principal Planner North West Planning

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

 


Auckland Development Committee

28 November 2013

 


Auckland Development Committee

28 November 2013