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

 

Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 13 February 2014

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

Cr Calum Penrose

 

Cr Cameron Brewer

Cr Dick Quax

 

Mayor Len Brown, JP

Member Josie Smith

 

Cr Dr Cathy Casey

Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM

 

Cr Bill Cashmore

Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE

 

Cr Ross Clow

Cr Wayne Walker

 

Cr Linda Cooper, JP

Cr John Watson

 

Cr Alf Filipaina

Cr Penny Webster

 

Cr Hon Chris Fletcher, QSO

Cr George Wood, CNZM

 

Cr Denise Krum

 

 

Cr Mike Lee

 

 

Member Liane Ngamane

 

 

(Quorum 11 members)

 

 

 

Tam White

Democracy Advisor

 

7 February 2014

 

Contact Telephone: 09 307 7253

Email: tam.white@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 

TERMS OF REFERENCE

 

 

Responsibilities

 

This committee will lead the implementation of the Auckland Plan, including the integration of economic, social, environmental and cultural objectives for Auckland for the next 30 years. It 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

13 February 2014

 

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     Puhinui Proposed Plan Change 35 - Marija Batistich                                      5

6          Local Board Input                                                                                                          5

7          Extraordinary Business                                                                                                6

8          Notices of Motion                                                                                                          6

9          Preparation of a Structure Plan for the Puhinui Study Area                                    7

10        Council submission to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE)’s "A Regulatory Framework for Community Housing Providers"                                 29

11        Local Area Plan for Laingholm/Parau/Waima/Woodlands Park                             31

12        Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section) Proposed Plan Change 13 Hobsonville Airbase to be approved and made operative                                      69

13        Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section) Plan Change 14 Hobsonville Village to be approved and made operative                                                                            131

14        Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section) Plan Change 16 City Form and Plan Change 17 New Lynn to be approved and made operative                                  137

15        Private Plan Change 41: Britomart Precinct to be made operative                     141

16        Request to make Private Plan Change 353 to 45A Comins Crescent, Mission Bay Operative in the Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999)                                                                                                                                     145

17        Environment Court decision on (Anns Creek) Plan Change 88 and Private Plan Change 233 to the Isthmus Section of the Auckland Council District Plan                      167

18        Environment Court decision on Plan Change 163 (Residential 1) to the Isthmus section of the Auckland Council District Plan                                                                         173

19        Proposed Plan Change 30 (PC30) & Consequential Variation 6 to Plan Change 14 to Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) - To be made fully Operative 177

20        Plan Change 30 (Beachlands Village: New Avenues) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) to be made Operative                                                              181

21        Request to make Private Plan Change 37 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) - Patumahoe Hill Structure Plan Operative                                             187

22        Request to make Private Plan Change 36 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) - Bombay Motorway and Rural Services Special Zone operative.       189

23        Private Plan Change 30A (Beachlands Village Business Centre Zone) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) to be made Operative                         193

24        Private Plan Change 36 (Wiri North) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) to be made Operative                                                                                 199

25        Request to make Plan Change 39, Additions to Group C (Trees) of Schedule 8a (historic Buildings, Structures, Trees and Areas) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) operative                                                                                                      203

26        Request to make Plan Change 13 (Review of District Plan Rural Provisions) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Papakura Section) operative                            207  

27        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

 

 


1          Apologies

 

An apology from Cr GS Wood has 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

 

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 28 November 2013, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

 

 

 

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       Puhinui Proposed Plan Change 35 - Marija Batistich

Purpose

1.       To address the Auckland Development Committee regarding the Puhinui Proposed Plan Change 35.

Executive Summary

2.       Marija Batistich on behalf of the Southern Gateway Consortium will speak regarding the proposed plan change. 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      thank Marija Batistich for her presentation.

 

 


 

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

13 February 2014

 

Preparation of a Structure Plan for the Puhinui Study Area

 

File No.: CP2014/00925

 

  

Purpose

1.       To set out the need for, and seek approval to prepare a structure plan to inform the council’s position on the future land use and development framework for the Puhinui Study Area, including the location of the Rural Urban Boundary in respect of the submissions to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

Executive Summary

2.       The Puhinui Study Area consists of approximately 1100 hectares of land, located east of the Auckland International Airport (AIA) (see Attachments A and B). This area is located outside the current Metropolitan Urban Limits (MUL) and proposed Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) as identified in the operative Auckland Regional Policy Statement (ARPS) and notified Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (Unitary Plan) respectively. Due to its strategic location beside the Auckland International Airport (AIA) and adjacent urban uses, this “island rural area” has potential for development and faces significant pressure for urbanisation.  However, the area has significant natural and cultural values and is also subject to a range of environmental and infrastructure constraints.

3.       On 14 March 2013, the Regional Development and Operations Committee (RDOC) of council considered a Private Plan Change Request (PPC35) from the Southern Gateway Consortium to rezone 150 hectares of land in the Puhinui Study Area from rural zoning to business zoning (see Attachment C). The Southern Gateway Consortium also requested that council initiate a change to the ARPS to include the PPC35 area within the MUL.

4.       The RDOC resolved to accept PPC35 for public notification. However, the Committee deferred its decision to promulgate a change to the ARPS to shift the MUL until a masterplanning process for the Puhinui Study Area is undertaken to ensure an integrated planning approach for the Puhinui area as a whole. The overall intent of the masterplanning process was to determine whether the Puhinui Study Area should be included within the RUB in the Unitary Plan.

5.       The key findings of the Puhinui masterplanning work was presented to the Unitary Plan Committee workshop held on 26 November 2013. The presentation highlighted the complexity of planning matters affecting this area, including:

·    Need for further technical information to assess the impact of development on the operational requirements of the AIA, including aircraft noise notification areas and traffic impacts.

·    Significant financial investment required for roading and wastewater infrastructure upgrades.

·    Need for a comprehensive assessment of cumulative effects of development on three significant geological features and ecological areas present within the study area to protect their multiple values (archaeological, geological, cultural and natural landscape).

·    Need for a coordinated strategy for the protection of archaeological sites and landscapes.

·    Need for clear and robust mechanisms to be in place to manage the effects of future development on the cultural heritage values associated with ancestral Maori land and the coastal environment.


6.       The masterplanning process confirms that the location of the RUB in Puhinui Study Area cannot be determined until a detailed structure plan is prepared. A proposal by council to move the MUL/RUB (in part or whole), at this stage creates the potential for a piecemeal development approach, thereby, introducing the risk of compromising the important natural, environmental and cultural values associated with this area. The piecemeal approach would also fail to address matters relating to funding and sequencing of infrastructure.

7.       In view of the economic potential for urbanisation and the complexity of planning issues associated with managing the effects of development on the environmental and cultural values of the Puhinui Study Area, the Unitary Plan Committee supported the preparation of a structure plan to identify the future land uses and a development framework for the Puhinui Study Area. The structure plan will inform council’s position and provide a robust basis to respond to submissions to the Unitary Plan on the location of the RUB in this area.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      approve the preparation of a structure plan for the Puhinui Study Area (see Attachment B) to inform the council position on the future land use and development framework for this area, including the location of the Rural Urban Boundary in respect of submissions to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

b)      confirm that council will not initiate a change to the Metropolitan Urban Limits as identified in the Operative Auckland Regional Policy Statement in response to Private Plan Change 35 (Puhinui Gateway) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) and that the matter of the urban expansion is to be addressed through the submissions to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

 

 

Discussion

8.       The Puhinui rural area consists of approximately 1100 hectares of land located east of the AIA on the eastern coast of the Manukau Harbour (see Attachment A). The specific area discussed in this report is referred to as the Puhinui Study Area, the extent of which is shown in Attachment B. The Puhinui Study Area is located outside both the MUL as identified in the ARPS; and the RUB as identified in the Unitary Plan. The study area is rural in character.

9.       The Auckland Plan has not identified the Puhinui Study Area for urban growth up to 2040. The Puhinui Study Area is zoned Rural Production under the Unitary Plan. A Mangere Puhinui Precinct is applied to this area to recognise its special qualities, including the protection of rural character, high quality soils, areas of high landscape values and significant natural and/or cultural values. The study area also contains large parcels of open space zoned areas which contribute to the open space character of this area, including Pukaki Crater, Portage Road Reserve, Colin Dale Park and Puhinui Reserve.

10.     The Puhinui Study Area faces significant pressure for urbanisation due to its close proximity to the AIA and adjoining urban uses. On 14 March 2013, the RDOC considered a Private Plan Change Request (PPC35) from Southern Gateway Consortium to rezone 150 hectares of land in the Puhinui Study Area from rural zoning to business zoning. The area subject to PPC35 is shown in Attachment C. The Southern Gateway Consortium also requested that council initiate a change to the ARPS to include the PPC35 area within the MUL. The Committee resolved to accept PPC35 for public notification. However, recognising the complexity of the issues associated with the Puhinui Study Area, the Committee deferred its decision to shift the MUL until a masterplanning process for the Puhinui Study Area was undertaken to ensure an integrated planning approach for the Puhinui area as a whole.


The Puhinui Masterplanning Process

11.     The Puhinui masterplanning process was initiated in April 2013. The purpose of the masterplanning process was to identify broad land use options, areas for protection, development constraints and infrastructure requirements for the Puhinui Study Area. The overall intent of this exercise was to determine whether the Puhinui Study Area should be included within the RUB in the notified Unitary Plan (which was in a draft form at that stage).

12.     The masterplanning process involved desktop investigations and completion of reports to identify high level strategic issues of relevance for the study area and critical information gaps. Mana Whenua and key stakeholders were consulted to understand their concerns and aspirations for the future development of the study area.

13.     The Puhinui masterplanning process has highlighted the complexity of the planning matters affecting this area (discussed below). In particular, there is a need to address in detail technical planning matters and resolve conflicting outcomes prior to any decision on the movement of the RUB. On 9 August 2013, the Auckland Plan Committee considered this matter, and agreed that the Puhinui Study Area has complex issues, and that it should not be included within the RUB in the notified Unitary Plan.

Key Findings of the Puhinui Masterplanning Process

14.     In summary, the Puhinui masterplanning process has identified that due to the complexity of planning issues associated with managing the effects of development on the important environmental and cultural values present in this area, it is not feasible to confirm the location of the RUB until a detailed structure plan is prepared. The key findings of the Puhinui masterplanning process are discussed below. 

Auckland International Airport (AIA)

15.     The Puhinui Study Area contains part of the AIA designation. AIA is a nationally and regionally significant infrastructure. Almost all of the Puhinui Study Area (excluding Puhinui Reserve and Colin Dale Park) is within the aircraft noise notification areas (see Attachment D). Other key provisions relating to the aircraft approach paths (e.g. Obstacle Limitation Surfaces, Specifications to Discharges to Air within the Approach Path, Runway Protection Areas) are also located within the Puhinui Study Area.

16.     Auckland International Airport Limited (AIAL) has recently released a masterplan concept which envisages significant growth in airport infrastructure and activity over the next 30 years. Representatives for AIAL have advised council staff that the future access to the airport from the east and south (i.e. through the Puhinui Structure Planning Area) is likely to become increasingly important as capacity for urban growth is provided in the south and as passenger and tourist numbers grow. AIAL has also advised that that the northern runway when constructed will be longer in length to cater for jet operations.

17.     Whilst there are existing provisions in place to ensure the protection of the current operational requirements of the AIA, no assessment has been undertaken to understand the impacts of future development (including change in land use) on the operational requirements of AIA. The expansion of the northern runway has implications for the noise notification areas applying to the Puhinui Study Area. AIAL is currently undertaking technical work to determine the new noise contours (informing the aircraft noise notification areas) to inform its submission to the Unitary Plan. This technical information is critical in determining the future land uses within the Puhinui Study Area. In particular there is a need to manage the effects of sensitive land uses including restricting residential, on the operation and capacity of this infrastructure to avoid reverse sensitivity issues in the future. 

18.     This projected growth in airport infrastructure has implications for the capacity of the roading network servicing the airport, in particular Puhinui Road. A comprehensive transport assessment is also required to understand the impacts on the roading infrastructure of future land use scenarios.


19.     AIAL seeks that council prepare a structure plan to comprehensively assess all the inter-related opportunities and constraints present in the Puhinui Study Area, prior to any decisions on the movement of the RUB. AIAL considers that to proceed with the RUB relocation without a precise idea of the land use and transportation implications of such a move poses significant risks for AIAL. AIAL raises the concern that if the RUB is moved first (i.e. without the required technical information), and it is determined subsequently that the area is not able to be urbanised due to the airport constraints, it would not be possible to reverse the decision on the RUB as the expectation for urbanisation would have already been created.

Infrastructure – Transport Network

20.     The only road access to the southern half of the Puhinui Study Area (south of Waokauri Creek), is via State Highway 20B (Puhinui Road), which serves as a key strategic access to AIA from the east. Auckland Transport (AT), New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) and AIAL have indicated that there are significant capacity issues associated with Puhinui Road, which is proposed to be upgraded to four lanes after 2020.

21.     AT and NZTA have indicated that any urban development within the Puhinui Study Area will require significant investment in roading infrastructure, including the establishment of a local roading network and a new interchange off Puhinui Road. The initial cost estimates include approximately $200 million to establish the local roading network and in excess of $120 million for a new interchange close to Prices Road. These figures are indicative estimates only. AT, NZTA and AIAL consider that a comprehensive integrated transport assessment is required to determine the impacts of future development on the roading network prior to a decision on the RUB. AT and NZTA highlight the issue that the estuary creates a physical barrier to the widening of Puhinui Road. The expansion of Pukaki Bridge is a highly sensitive matter to Te Akitai Waiohua, given the cultural values associated with the Pukaki-Waokauri Creek in the coastal environment and ancestral land in adjacent areas.

22.     AT, NZTA and AIAL seek that council comprehensively consider these infrastructure matters prior to any decision to urbanise this area. Given the significant financial investment required, matters relating to funding and staging should be considered holistically. In order to prepare a comprehensive integrated transport assessment, details relating to land use patterns and projected growth are required to support the technical analysis.

Infrastructure – Wastewater

23.     Wastewater in the southern area is serviced by the Southern Interceptor and the South Western Interceptor. This wastewater servicing strategy is based the current policy framework that the Puhinui Study Area remains rural. The Southern Western Interceptor, which runs within the Puhinui Study Area, is at capacity and is unable to accommodate any additional growth. The Southern Interceptor has very limited capacity.

24.     Watercare has advised that the urbanisation of the Puhinui Study Area has significant implications for wastewater infrastructure.  Any change in the existing policy direction will necessitate major upgrades to the network infrastructure (Southern Interceptor), as well as changes to the operation of the Mangere Wastewater Treatment Plant. In order to serve PPC35 area alone, an estimated $18 million is required to establish a new pump station and approximately $90 million for upgrading the Southern Interceptor. Including all of the Puhinui Study Area within the RUB would require in excess of $120 million in infrastructure upgrades.

25.     To ensure timely and efficient servicing of the area, Watercare needs to plan and implement a strategy for funding the significant costs involved, as well as sequencing and timing of upgrades. The level of detail required by Watercare to inform their servicing and funding strategy can only be achieved at a structure plan level. Watercare seeks that council prepare a structure plan prior to any decision on the RUB.


Geological Values

26.     The Puhinui Study Area contains three large areas of geological features which form part of the Auckland volcanic field:  Pukaki Crater, Crater Hill and Puhinui Craters (see Attachment E). Pukaki Crater and Crater Hill area are ancestral Maori land and of particular spiritual value to Te Akitai Waiohua. Crater Hill is listed as being of national significance in the New Zealand Geopreservation Inventory. Crater Hill also contains the Selfs and Underground Press lava caves, which are of national significance.

27.     The Unitary Plan identifies these craters as Outstanding Natural Features (ONF). These craters cumulatively produce an open and high natural value landscape within the Puhinui Study Area. The protection of their physical and visual integrity, along with the integrated management of their multiple values (such as archaeological and cultural) is important. There is a need to comprehensively assess the cumulative effects of future development on these natural features, in particular the need to retain their “naturalness”, as once destroyed this value is lost forever. Development on sites immediately adjacent to these ONF need to be managed to ensure that the built environment remains subservient to the natural character of these craters. Given the close proximity of these ONFs within the Puhinui Study Area, another factor to consider is the retention of the physical and visual linkages between these features prior to the urbanisation of this area.

Archaeological Values

28.     All of the land within the Puhinui Study Area is ancestral Maori land, with a long occupational history. Council commissioned an archaeological survey of the entire study area to document the full extent of the archaeological sites present within this area. The archaeological survey identified a large number of archaeological sites, most of which are located close to the coast or within the Crater Hill area (see Attachment F).

29.     The archaeological survey also identifies “archaeological landscapes” where there is a high probability of further archaeological sites being present, given past known occupation. The Crater Hill area is identified as an archaeological landscape of exceptional significance, containing 56 individual archaeological sites.

30.     A strategy for the coordinated protection of these archaeological sites and landscapes is an important consideration in the future planning for the Puhinui Study Area.

Cultural Heritage Values and Views of Mana Whenua

31.     The rohe of Puhinui is a place of deep cultural and spiritual significance to Te Akitai Waiohua. The Te Akitai Waiohua Iwi Authority has prepared a Cultural Heritage Report for the Puhinui Study Area. The report identifies 20 sites of significance to Te Akitai Waiohua, most of which are located either within the study area or in close proximity to it.

32.     As noted in the Auckland Plan, the Puhinui area is subject to the Eastern Access Agreement (EAA), dated 17 October 1991. This is an agreement signed by the former Manukau City Council (with other signatories) to enable the development of the eastern access route to the AIA, including the current road and bridge access across Pukaki Creek. The EAA was based on the understanding that the Puhinui Peninsula area was recognised as a culturally significant area to Maori. It recognised that providing this new access would create pressure for urban development of the Puhinui Peninsula, and therefore, parties agreed on actions to ensure that the area remains rural in the future. While the EAA is not binding to landowners, it commits council to consult with the other signatories and take account of cultural values when considering land use matters in the Puhinui area.

33.     The policy framework of the Unitary Plan seeks to enable Mana Whenua to identify, articulate and integrate their values in the resource management processes affecting ancestral lands. Extensive consultation has been undertaken with Te Akitai Waiohua to understand their position on the matter of the RUB movement as it applies to the Puhinui Study Area.


34.     While Te Akitai Waiohua is appreciative of the growth pressures facing the Puhinui area, it is strongly opposed to any RUB movement, without understanding the impacts of the future development on their cultural heritage values associated with this area. Te Akitai Waiohua seeks certainty of outcome which ensures that the cultural heritage values associated with this ancestral land and the coastal receiving environment will be maintained and/or enhanced.

35.     Te Akitai Waiohua is concerned that if the RUB is moved first, and the subsequent planning process determines that the future urbanisation of this area will result in significant negative impacts on cultural heritage values and the coastal receiving environment, then there is no process for the reversal of the RUB in the future. The expectation for urbanisation would already have been given to the landowners, who will then be opposed to any subsequent removal or adjustment of the RUB. In order to comprehensively address cultural heritage matters, and achieve a certainty of outcome, Te Akitai Waiohua supports council preparing a structure plan for the Puhinui Study Area prior to any decision on the RUB. 

36.     Consultation has also been undertaken with other iwi who have an interest in the Puhinui Study Area. Ngati Te Ata, Ngati Tamaoho, Te Ahiwaru, Ngati Paoa and Waikato Tainui were all informed of the masterplanning process and were invited to a workshop held on 15 November 2013 to enable information sharing relating to the Puhinui Study Area. Representatives from Te Akitai, Ngati Tamaoho and Ngati Paoa attended the workshop.

37.     Ngati Tamaoho stressed the need for sustainable environmental outcomes, and supported the need for appropriate structure planning first. Ngati Te Ata supports PPC35, and has plans for a National Marae on Colin Dale Park. Ngati Te Ata is supportive of Te Akitai Waiohua’s position as it relates to the remainder of the area within the Puhinui Study Area. In its submission to PPC35, Huakina Development Trust (who represented 22 northern marae of Tainui at the time of signing the EAA), recommends that a masterplanning process for the entire area be completed prior to PPC35 being approved.

Significant Ecological Areas

38.     The Puhinui Study area adjoins the Manukau Harbour with Pukaki, Waokauri and Puhinui Creeks flowing into it. Manukau Harbour and these creeks are identified as Significant Ecological Areas (SEA) in the Unitary Plan in recognition of its high habitat values. The part of the Manukau Harbour adjoining Puhinui Reserve and Puhinui Creek support thousands of international migratory birds and NZ endemic wading birds (including threatened species).  Part of the area is a wildlife refuge. Pukaki – Waokauri Creek is a Tangata Whenua Management Area.

39.     Given the presence of SEAs in the Puhinui Study Area, it is important that there is a high level of certainty that the future development of this area will not adversely affect water quality, and ecological and cultural values associated with this area. Te Akitai Waiohua has identified this as a critical matter for consideration, especially in light of the Tangata Whenua Management Area and the waterways being identified as sites of significance to iwi in the Cultural Heritage Report. Te Akitai Waiohua seeks to understand the impacts of future development on this sensitive receiving environment prior to council decision relating to the RUB.

40.     The Puhinui Study Area falls within the Puhinui catchment and the Pukaki/Waokauri catchment. Neither of these catchments have a current Catchment Management Plan. No stormwater or contaminant load modelling has been undertaken to determine the implications of future land uses on this highly sensitive receiving environment. In order to provide inputs into these types of modelling work, a high level of certainty is required in terms of the final land use types and development scenarios, which can only be feasibly determined by undertaking a structure plan for this area.


The Way Forward – Options and Evaluation

41.     The key issue for consideration is whether the Puhinui Study Area should be included in the RUB with the area being identified as Future Urban Zone in the Unitary Plan. Five options for the RUB location were considered. The table below identifies the likely zoning provisions under each of the options:

Option

Land use type

Option 1(RUB to include PPC35 area only)

·    Interim zoning of Future Urban for the PPC35 area only in the Unitary Plan.

·    Should PPC35 be approved, this would provide for business uses on this land. The remainder of the area would retain the existing rural and public open space zones.

Option 2 (RUB along Puhinui Road)

·   Interim zoning of Future Urban for all of the land south of Puhinui Road in the Unitary Plan. 

·   Should PPC35 be approved, this would provide for business uses on the PPC35 land. A structure planning process would need to be undertaken to determine the appropriate land use and development framework for the parts located south of Puhinui Road but outside PPC35 area. The existing public open space zones will be retained. 

Option 3 (RUB to follow the coastline)

·    Interim zoning of Future Urban for all of the land within the Puhinui Study Area, except for the areas zoned public open space. A subsequent structure plan will determine the appropriate land uses and development framework. 

Option 4 (structure plan prior to RUB movement)

·      Retain the existing rural and open space zones until the completion of the structure plan, which will identify the appropriate future zonings and development framework prior to the RUB movement.   

Option 5 (no RUB movement)

·      Retain existing rural and open space zones.

 

 

42.     Option 1 (RUB to include PPC35 area only) presents a risk to council in terms of defending the location of the RUB. While Puhinui Road as a strategic roading link would provide a relatively stronger defensible boundary argument under Option 2 (RUB along Puhinui Road), both Options 1 and 2 will result in an “island of rural” surrounded by strong urban uses. A significant portion of the Puhinui Study Area will remain rural within an urban setting (further strengthened by PPC35 uses). The remaining rural area will continue to face growth pressures, especially in light of the movement of the RUB to accommodate PPC35.

43.     The piecemeal approach of Options 1 and 2 present the risk of compromising the important natural, environmental and cultural values associated with this area. It also can lead to council investing a significant amount of money in roading and wastewater infrastructure without the corresponding public benefits and formal agreements for funding in place. There is also the risk that the design of infrastructure would preclude the future development of the remaining rural area, therefore, any subsequent urbanisation would require further investments in infrastructure to cater for the additional growth.


44.     Option 3 (RUB to follow the coastline) sets the expectation that the area will be urbanised in the future, without having regard to constraints applying in this area. There is significant risk that if the future structure planning process identifies that some of the land is unable to be urbanised, then there is no process to reverse the decision on the RUB and the expectation for urbanisation would have already been created. This report highlights that important technical information is missing at this stage to determine the impacts of the constraints applying to the study area.

45.     Option 3 provides the opportunity for the structure plan under PPC35 area to proceed should it be approved. This means that the structure planning for the whole of the Puhinui Study area would not be undertaken in a holistic and integrated manner, thereby continuing the fragmented approach of Options 1 and 2, and compromising the important natural, environmental and cultural values associated with this area.

46.     While Option 3 provides an opportunity to address infrastructure matters for the Puhinui Study Area comprehensively, there is a risk that infrastructure funding and staging may not be in place at the time of the development (e.g. PPC35 area).

47.     Option 4 (structure plan prior to RUB movement) enables all environmental, cultural, infrastructural, economic and social matters to be considered holistically. The structure plan will establish the spatial development pattern of land use, transport and services network, and a development framework through precinct provisions relating to matters such as bulk and location of buildings, set-backs, areas for protection, open space network and connections for the Puhinui Study Area. It provides certainty to all stakeholders of the vision and outcomes for the study area prior to the identification of land for urban purposes.

48.     Option 4 further enables council to develop strategies relating to infrastructure funding and staging prior to the release of the land for urban uses, thereby, setting a clear expectation for the timing of the development. This option is strongly supported by the majority of the key stakeholders, except PPC35 applicant and two of the landowners. It also enables council to robustly consider submissions to the Unitary Plan as they relate to the issue of the RUB in the study area.

49.     Option 5 (no RUB movement) is not a feasible option at this stage, as it fails to give regard to council’s obligations to assess PPC35. Council is obliged to consider the issue of urban expansion into a rural area. It is highly likely that council will receive submissions on the Unitary Plan seeking amendments to the location of the RUB. It is not feasible at this stage to disregard the issue of the location of the RUB.

50.     On 15 November 2013, a workshop was organised to enable sharing of information relating to the Puhinui Study Area and consider the above options as part of the masterplanning process. In addition to the key stakeholders, all of the landowners within the study area were also invited. The majority of the attendees strongly supported Option 4 (structure plan prior to decision on the RUB).

51.     Based on the findings of the Puhinui materplanning process, it is recommended that council prepare a structure plan for the Puhinui Study Area prior to its decision on the RUB. This is necessary to ensure that important natural, environmental and cultural values associated with this area are not compromised and that matters relating to funding and sequencing of infrastructure are considered holistically.

Consideration

Local Board Views

52.     The Puhinui Study Area is within the boundaries of the Otara Papatoetoe Local Board and the Mangere Otahuhu Local Board. These Local Boards have been consulted as part of the masterplanning process and are supportive of the recommended structure planning approach.

Maori Impact Statement

53.     See paragraphs 31 to 37 of this report.

Implementation Issues

54.     The structure plan work is currently unbudgeted.  Due to time constraints, council staff have not had the opportunity to quantify the costs associated with the preparation of the structure plan at the time of the writing of this report. Preliminary discussions have occurred with relevant council departments and CCO study partners regarding how to resource this work (staff time and costs). Re-prioritisation of work programmes and budgets will be necessary.

55.     The Puhinui masterplanning work has confirmed that there is no clear justification for determining the RUB location in this area at this stage, and that preparation of a structure plan is a pre-requisite for determining the RUB. The structure plan work will need to be completed in time to inform the hearing of submissions on the Unitary Plan. Hearing of matters relating to the RUB is likely to occur during 2015.

56.     The outstanding issue relating to the location of the MUL/RUB in the Puhinui Study Area may be seen to delay the processing of PPC35, which has completed the submissions phase. A hearing report is being prepared to assess the PPC35 provisions and address matters raised in submissions. Hearing could potentially occur around April 2014. However, there are outstanding matters raised through submissions which require further technical assessment by the applicant e.g. transportation and wastewater infrastructure. A stormwater discharge consent for the PPC35 area was lodged by the applicant on 20 December 2013. This is being assessed and may require further information and/or public notification. If a hearing on PPC35 were to proceed based on currently available information, there is a risk that the hearing may be adjourned until all the further technical assessment is available. This could delay the hearing until the latter part of 2014 at the earliest. It would be more efficient if the PPC35 rezoning request is considered through the Unitary Plan submission/hearing process and not through a separate process. However, only the applicant of PPC35 (Southern Consortium) can make that decision. Staff have initiated discussions with the applicant and dialogue is continuing.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Locality Plan

17

bView

Map of the Puhinui Study Area

19

cView

Map of PPC35 Area

21

dView

Map of the Auckland International Airport Aircraft Noise Areas

23

eView

Map of Geological Features

25

fView

Map of Archaeological Sites

27

      

Signatories

Authors

Sukhdeep Singh - Principal Planner

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

 


Auckland Development Committee

13 February 2014

 



Auckland Development Committee

13 February 2014

 



Auckland Development Committee

13 February 2014

 



Auckland Development Committee

13 February 2014

 



Auckland Development Committee

13 February 2014

 



Auckland Development Committee

13 February 2014

 



Auckland Development Committee

13 February 2014

 

Council submission to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE)’s "A Regulatory Framework for Community Housing Providers"

 

File No.: CP2014/01472

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To seek approval on a Council submission to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE)’s consultation paper “A Regulatory Framework for Community Housing Providers”.

Executive Summary

2.       MBIE is proposing a regulatory framework for Community Housing Providers (CHPs) as part of the government’s broader Social Housing Reform Programme that commenced in December 2010. The most recent of these reforms was the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Act 2013) which allows for the establishment of the Regulatory Authority within Government to oversee CHPs in receipt of government funding and investment.

3.       MBIE launched a consultation on the regulatory framework for CHPs on 20 December 2013 which closes on 7 February 2014. The tight deadline for the development of this regulatory framework is owing to the fact that Community Housing Providers will compete with Housing New Zealand for the income-related rent subsidy (IRRS) for their new clients as of April 2014. The purpose of the proposed regulatory framework for CHPs is to:

·   protect crown investment

·   ensure tenants are appropriately housed

·   enable the growth of the CHP sector

·   encourage non-government investment in social housing. The development of a regulatory framework for CHPs is desirable; however the definition of Community Housing Provider used in the Consultation Paper is very limiting and potentially could constrict the growth of the CHP sector. In addition, Local Authorities are currently excluded, as are some CHPs in the housing continuum that provide assisted home ownership schemes.

Strategic Context

4.       The Housing Action Plan, Priority Area 1, provides for council to “drive housing opportunities on council owned land” which includes the potential for partnerships with the Community Housing Sector and for council to assist in growing the sector. There is concern that the exclusion of local authorities and other community housing organisations from the definition may limit council’s activities in Priority Area 1.

Submission

5.       A draft submission to address the above concerns has been drafted and submitted to meet the deadline with the proviso that it may be subject to amendment subject to the final determination of the Committee.

6.       The draft submission will be circulated prior to the meeting for review and amendment/ratification of the committee as required.


 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      approve or amend the draft submission to Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE)’s consultation paper – “A Regulatory Framework for Community Housing Providers”, noting that the primary focus of the draft submission is on the definition of Community Housing Provider.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Authors

Ree Anderson - Project Director for Housing

Authorisers

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

 


Auckland Development Committee

13 February 2014

 

Local Area Plan for Laingholm/Parau/Waima/Woodlands Park

 

File No.: CP2013/26028

 

  

Purpose

1.       This report seeks a resolution from the Auckland Development Committee to approve the Muddy Creeks Plan - Local Area Plan (LAP) for the Laingholm/Parau/Waimā/Woodlands Park area.

Executive Summary

1.       On 26 September 2012, the Waitākere Ranges Local Board approved the preparation of a Local Area Plan for the Laingholm/Parau/Woodlands Park/Waimā area.

2.       A Local Area Plan is prepared under the provisions of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008.  It sets out a long term vision for an area, and objectives and actions to realise that vision.  It enables the Council to determine with local communities and iwi, how the purpose and objectives of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008 may be achieved at the local level, recognising that each community has a distinct identity and character. 

3.       A collaborative process of community and iwi engagement was undertaken during the drafting of the Local Area Plan between December 2012 and May 2013.  The draft Local Area Plan was publicly notified from 1 July to 16 August 2013.  The Waitākere Ranges Local Board adopted the final draft Local Area Plan at their meeting on 9 October 2013.  The text of the amended Local Area Plan proposed for adoption is included in Attachment 1.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      approve the Muddy Creeks Plan - Local Area Plan for Parau, Laingholm, Woodlands Park and Waimā.

b)      request officers to report as part of the six-monthly report on the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area programme on the progress made to implement actions in the Muddy Creeks Plan - Local Area Plan for Parau, Laingholm, Woodlands Park and Waimā.

Discussion

4.       Local Area Plans are part of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area programme.  Under the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008, the Auckland Council may prepare and adopt a Local Area Plan (LAP).  LAPs establish a process that is designed to reach a wide consensus among the community, tangata whenua and stakeholders on the valued features of the locality and its future character.  They outline objectives and actions to maintain or improve the distinctive and valued qualities of local areas over time.

5.       At its meeting on 20 September 2012, the Waitākere Ranges Local Board resolved (Resolution number WTK/2012/147):

a)      That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board approve the preparation of a Local Area Plan in the Laingholm/Parau/Waimā/Woodlands Park area.

b)      That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board generally endorse the proposed boundary for the Local Area Plan, but agree that the Local Area Plan should reflect the distinct communities of the area, and postpone a decision on the precise boundary of the Local Area Plan on its eastern (Titirangi) side until affected residents have been consulted.

 

Research and background information

6.       A series of background and research papers were undertaken or commissioned by the project team to document the heritage features and characteristics of the area.  These were made available to the public electronically on the LAP Discussion Forum on the Auckland Council web-site and distributed at community workshops in March 2013.  This information was collated and summarised into a background report in time for the notification of the draft LAP.

Engagement activities during drafting process

7.       The LAP and its associated research papers were informed by the feedback received from the community and iwi at a number of engagement events and activities:

·   Initial consultation in August 2012: preliminary assessment of local issues that residents wanted to see addressed in the LAP, during open days and through written feedback

·   Launch workshop in December 2012:  collation of feedback on a future vision for the LAP area, discussion around valued features and available information sources

·   Community planning workshops in March 2013:  presentation of background research findings and community initiatives, refinement and prioritisation of collated issues, objectives and actions

·   Discussion Forum for January to August 2013:  on-line discussion hosted by the Auckland Council web-site and moderated by the North-West Planning team

·   Survey of land owners along eastern boundary in March 2013:  this survey asked local residents whether properties along Huia Road between Scenic Drive and Landing Road should be included in the LAP for Laingholm, Parau, Waimā and Woodlands Park.

·   Youth Survey:  this online survey hosted by the Auckland Council web-site sought feedback from young people on what they liked/disliked about the area and how they felt it could be improved to make it a better place for young people to live.

·   Meetings and communications with resident associations to update on progress, seek feedback on the engagement process and seek feedback on draft provisions

·   Meetings and discussions with Sustainable Neighbourhoods facilitators and coordinators in March-May 2013 to gather information on ecological features in the area, existing initiatives and to seek feedback on draft provisions relating to ecological restoration

·   Meetings and discussions with Te Kawerau a Maki and Ngāti Whātua to agree on the process for engagement, identify matters of significance and sources of information, seek feedback on background research material and draft LAP provisions.  Te Kawerau developed a Cultural Values Assessment for the LAP area.

·   Internal meetings and workshops with relevant Auckland Council and Auckland Transport Units to gather information, seek updates on emerging strategies and programmes and seek feedback on the draft LAP provisions.

 

Public notification process

8.       The draft Muddy Creeks Plan was publicly notified from 1 July to 16 August 2013.  During this period, a series of engagement events and activities were organised, including:

·   Three open days/public drop-in sessions at Titirangi Library and Village

·   Planting event at Laingholm Primary School

·   Meeting with several Sustainable Neighbourhood coordinators

·   Web-based discussion forum and on-line survey on the Auckland Council web-site

·   Flyer drop to local residents, articles in local media and Facebook notices

·   E-mails to residents on the LAP list, e-mails and letters to external stakeholder organisations and iwi.

9.       Feedback was received from 23 respondents, including individual residents, local residents associations, iwi and external stakeholder organisations.  The feedback was analysed and considered in the finalisation of the LAP provisions.  Follow-up meetings were also organised with Watercare and with Te Kawerau a Maki to clarify and discuss points of feedback.

Content of the Final Draft Muddy Creeks Plan

10.     The text of the Muddy Creeks Plan is provided in Attachment A.  There are four key components to the LAP:

·   the boundary which defines the area that this LAP applies to

·   the identification of features important to and valued by the community

·   the descriptions of existing and future character and amenity

·   the objectives and actions proposed to achieve the desired future character and amenity.

 

11.     Three maps are attached to the LAP, which will be incorporated into the final designed layout.  These include:

·   Map 1: Local Area Plan Boundary (refer to Attachment 2)

·   Sketch of amended Map 2: Ecological Corridors (refer to Attachment 3)

·   Sketch of amended Map 3: Indicative improvements around community hubs and potential walkway connections (refer to Attachment 4).

 

12.     The Final Draft Muddy Creeks Plan was adopted by the Waitākere Ranges Local Board at its meeting on 9 October 2013.

Consideration

Local Board Views

13.     The Waitākere Ranges Local Board instigated the preparation of this LAP.  The Local Board was updated and consulted throughout the engagement and drafting process, and participated in community workshops.  The Local Board adopted this LAP through a formal resolution on 9 October 2013.

Maori Impact Statement

14.     Te Kawerau a Maki contributed to the preparation of this LAP through the preparation of a Cultural Impact Assessment for the area.  The iwi also provided feedback on emerging provisions during the drafting process, and on the notified version of the LAP.

15.     Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei provided information on areas of historical and cultural significance, particularly the site of the battle of Paruroa near the Lower Nihotupu dam.  Their aspiration for partnership between iwi and Council in the management of these important sites has been considered in the drafting of the LAP.

General

16.     This LAP has been the subject of a comprehensive, collaborative process of public engagement as outlined in this report over a 12 month period.  The outcomes of this engagement have been used to inform the content of this LAP.

Implementation Issues

17.     Following approval by the Auckland Development Committee, the final LAP will be promulgated.  The implementation of the LAP actions will be integrated into the work plan for the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area programme and relevant Council units.  The progress of the LAP implementation will be reported to the Local Board and the Auckland Development Committee on a six-monthly basis as part of the report on the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area programme.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Final Draft Muddy Creeks Plan

35

bView

Map 1: Local Area Plan Boundary

63

cView

Sketch of amended Map 2: Ecological Corridors

65

dView

Sketch of amended Map 3: Indicative improvements around community hubs and potential walkway connections

67

    

Signatories

Authors

Claire Liousse - Planner

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

 


Auckland Development Committee

13 February 2014

 




























Auckland Development Committee

13 February 2014

 


Auckland Development Committee

13 February 2014

 



Auckland Development Committee

13 February 2014

 


Auckland Development Committee

13 February 2014

 

Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section) Proposed Plan Change 13 Hobsonville Airbase to be approved and made operative

 

File No.: CP2014/00011

 

  

Purpose

1.       To obtain approval from the Auckland Development Committee to make Proposed Plan Change 13 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section) operative in accordance with Clause 17 and 20 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.  Plan Change 13 relates to development at the former Hobsonville Airbase.

Executive Summary

2.       Plan Change 13 enables the re-development of the former Hobsonville Airbase.  The Plan Change divides the Airbase into eight Precincts (identified as A – H).  Precincts A – G were made operative on 9 September 2011.  Precinct H remained subject to appeal by two appellants, the National Trading Company of New Zealand Limited (NTC), and Progressive Enterprises Limited (Progressive).  Precinct H is located at the eastern end of the former Hobsonville Airbase (see Attachment A).

3.       These two appeals to Precinct H challenged the retail policies and rules that applied to Precinct H.  These appeals were also associated with appeals by NTC and Progressive to Plan Change 14, which is located in close proximity to Precinct H.  The appeals to Plan Change 14 were resolved by consent order by the Environment Court on 11 November 2013.  As part of resolving Plan Change 14, NTC and Progressive agreed to withdraw their appeals to Precinct H.  The appeals to Precinct H were withdrawn on 15 November 2013 (NTC) and 18 November 2013 (Progressive) (see Attachment B).  These two withdrawals mean that Precinct H remains unaltered from the decisions issued by the former Waitakere City Council on 31 July 2007.  This part of Plan Change 13 is now beyond challenge, and is able to be made operative (see Attachment C).

 

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      approve, in accordance with the decision issued by the former Waitakere City Council on 31 July 2007, the policies and rules that apply to Precinct H of Proposed Plan Change 13 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section).

b)      direct that the policies and rules that apply to Precinct H of Proposed Plan Change 13 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section) be made operative pursuant to Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.

c)      authorise the Manager, Planning - North/West to complete the statutory processes required to make Plan Change 13 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section) fully operative pursuant to Clause 20 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991, including the determination of the operative and notification date.

 

Discussion

4.       Plan Change 13 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section) introduces a policy and rule framework to guide the development of the former Hobsonville Airbase.  Four appeals were lodged following notification of the plan change decision on 31 July 2007.  Two of these appeals were resolved by consent order, prior to 1 November 2010.  Precincts A - G were consequently made operative on 9 September 2011. 

5.       The two remaining appeals from NTC and Progressive related to the policies and rules that manage retail space in Precinct H.  Given that Precinct H is in close proximity to the town centre at Hobsonville Village, it was agreed by the parties to the appeal that the appeals to Precinct H would be resolved in conjunction with retail appeals by NTC and Progressive to Proposed Plan Change 14, Hobsonville Village. 

6.       The appeals to Plan Change 14 were resolved by consent order on 11 November 2013.  No amendments to the policies and rules for Precinct H were made as a result of the consent order for Plan Change 14.  The withdrawal of the appeals by NTC and Progressive to Precinct H means that all of the appeals to Plan Change 13 are completed.  The policies and rules that are not operative can now be made operative. 

Consideration

Local Board Views

7.       This report seeks approval to make operative the policies and rules of Precinct H of Plan Change 13 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section).  This is not a matter that is within the delegated authority of the Upper Harbour Local Board.  Consequently the view of the Local Board has not been sought.  The Local Board will be notified once the policies and rules of Precinct H of Plan Change 13 become operative. 

Maori Impact Statement

8.       Making Precinct H of Plan Change 13 operative is a procedural matter that does not require iwi consideration.  All the decision making steps in the plan change process are now completed and the plan change is beyond challenge. Te Kawerau a Maki and Ngati Whatua were consulted during the preparation of Plan Change 13.  Neither iwi made a submission on Plan Change 13. 

General

9.       Under Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act, a local authority must approve a plan change, if all submissions or appeals have been disposed of. Under Clause 20 of the Act, the approved plan change will be publicly notified as becoming operative at least 5 working days before the actual date that it will become operative.

10.     The recommendation to approve and make Precinct H of Plan Change 13 operative in full is consistent with the council’s policies and strategies and does not trigger the significance policy.

Implementation Issues

11.     There will be some minor administrative costs involved in making the plan change operative and the consequential updating of the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section).  These costs are provided for in the existing Regional and Local Planning Department budget.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Hobsonville Airbase Precinct H Location

73

bView

Title National Trading Company and Progressive Enterprises Withdrawal Notices

75

cView

Title PLan Change 13 Decisions Version To Be Made Operative

79

     

Signatories

Authors

Eryn Shields - Team Leader Area Planning & Policy West

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

 


Auckland Development Committee

13 February 2014

 


Auckland Development Committee

13 February 2014

 





Auckland Development Committee

13 February 2014

 





















































Auckland Development Committee

13 February 2014

 

Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section) Plan Change 14 Hobsonville Village to be approved and made operative

 

File No.: CP2014/00012

 

  

Purpose

1.       To obtain approval from the Auckland Development Committee to make Proposed Plan Change 14 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section) operative in accordance with Clause 17 and 20 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.  Plan Change 14 relates to the development of the eastern end of Hobsonville Road, for industrial and retail purposes.

Executive Summary

2.       Plan Change 14 enables the development of formerly rural land for industrial purposes and the creation of a retail node located across the road from the existing retail at the corner of Ockleston and Wiseley Roads.  The Plan Change was subject to appeal by four appellants, Auckland Council (which was an appeal by the legacy Auckland Regional Council), the National Trading Company of New Zealand Limited (NTC), the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) and Progressive Enterprises Limited (Progressive). 

3.       These four appeals related to the relationship between Hobsonville Road, the new State Highway 18, and the adjacent land uses that accessed these transport corridors.  An important consideration was the challenge by NTC and Progressive to the retail policies and rules that applied to the town centre (identified as Precinct B of Plan Change 14).  These appeals were also associated with appeals to Precinct H of Plan Change 13, which is located in close proximity to Precinct B.  The four appeals to Plan Change 14 were resolved by consent order by the Environment Court on 11 November 2013.  As part of resolving Plan Change 14, NTC and Progressive agreed to withdraw their appeals to Precinct H.  The appeals to Precinct H were withdrawn on 15 November 2013 (NTC) and 18 November 2013 (Progressive).  Plan Change 14 is now beyond challenge, and is able to be made operative.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      approve, in accordance with the decision issued by the Environment Court on 11 November 2013, the policies and rules that apply to Proposed Plan Change 14 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section).

b)      direct that the policies and rules that apply to Proposed Plan Change 14 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section) be made operative pursuant to Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.

c)      authorise the Manager, Planning - North/West to complete the statutory processes required to make Plan Change 14 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section) fully operative pursuant to Clause 20 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991, including the determination of the operative and notification date.

 


Discussion

4.       Plan Change 14 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section) introduces a policy and rule framework to guide the development of formerly rural land for industrial purposes and the creation of a retail node located across the road from the existing retail at the corner of Ockleston and Wiseley Roads.  Six appeals were lodged following notification of the plan change decision on 31 July 2007.  One of these appeals were resolved by consent order, prior to 1 November 2010.  One appeal was withdrawn by the appellant

5.       The four remaining appeals from Auckland Council, NTC, NZTA and Progressive related to the policies and rules that manage land use (and in particular retail space) in Plan Change 14.  Given that the local centre in Plan Change 14 is in close proximity to the town centre at Hobsonville Village, is was agreed by the parties to the appeal that the appeals to Precinct H would be resolved in conjunction with retail appeals by NTC and Progressive to Proposed Plan Change 14, Hobsonville Village. 

6.       The appeals to Plan Change 14 were resolved by consent order on 11 November 2013.  This means that all of the appeals to Plan Change 14 are completed, and can now be made operative. 

Consideration

Local Board Views

7.       This report seeks approval to make operative Plan Change 14 the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section).  This is not a matter that is within the delegated authority of the Upper Harbour Local Board.  Consequently the view of the Local Board has not been sought.  The Local Board will be notified once Plan Change 14 becomes operative. 

Maori Impact Statement

8.       Making Plan Change 14 operative is a procedural matter that does not require iwi consideration.  All the decision making steps in the plan change process are now completed and the plan change is beyond challenge. Te Kawerau a Maki and Ngati Whatua were consulted during the preparation of Plan Change 14.  Neither iwi made a submission on Plan Change 14. 

General

9.       Under Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act, a local authority must approve a plan change, if all submissions or appeals have been disposed of. Under Clause 20 of the Act, the approved plan change will be publicly notified as becoming operative at least 5 working days before the actual date that it will become operative.

10.     The recommendation to approve and make Plan Change 14 operative in full is consistent with the council’s policies and strategies and does not trigger the significance policy.

Implementation Issues

11.     There will be some minor administrative costs involved in making the plan change operative and the consequential updating of the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section).  These costs are provided for in the existing Regional and Local Planning Department budget.

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Plan Change 14 Location

135

bView

Plan Change 14 Environment Court Consent Order 11 November 2013 (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Signatories

Authors

Eryn Shields - Team Leader Area Planning & Policy West

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

 


Auckland Development Committee

13 February 2014

 


Auckland Development Committee

13 February 2014

 

Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section) Plan Change 16 City Form and Plan Change 17 New Lynn to be approved and made operative

 

File No.: CP2014/00013

 

  

Purpose

1.       To obtain approval from the Auckland Development Committee to make Proposed Plan Change 16 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section) operative, and to also make the remaining parts of Plan Change 17 operative in accordance with Clause 17 and 20 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991. 

Executive Summary

2.       Plan Change 16 relates to the policy basis upon which growth is managed and sequenced in the former Waitakere City Council area.  The remaining part of Plan Change 17 that was subject to appeal was Issue 5.11.  That issue statement sets out the basis for applying the city wide growth provisions in Plan Change 16 in the New Lynn context. 

3.       The appeals to Plan Change 16 were resolved by consent order by the Environment Court on 1 November 2013.  A number of appeals to Plan Change 16 were also withdrawn.  The resolution of these appeals therefore completes the resolution of all appeals to Plan Change 16 and so the Plan Change is now beyond challenge, and is able to be made operative. 

4.       The appeal to Plan Change 17 Issue 5.11 was resolved by consent order on 11 November 2013.  This part of Plan Change 17 is now beyond challenge, and is able to be made operative.  The resolution of this appeal completes the resolution of all appeals to Plan Change 17, New Lynn. 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      approve, in accordance with the decision issued by the Environment Court on 1 November 2013, the policies, explanations and consequential amendments in Proposed Plan Change 16 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section).

b)      approve, in accordance with the decision issued by the Environment Court on 11 November 2013, the amendments to Issue 5.11 in Proposed Plan Change 17 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section).

c)      direct that Proposed Plan Changes 16 and 17 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section) be made operative pursuant to Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.

d)      authorise the Manager, Planning - North/West to complete the statutory processes required to make Plan Changes 16 and 17 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section) fully operative pursuant to Clause 20 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991, including the determination of the operative and notification date.

 

 


Discussion

5.       The Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section) Plan Change 16 (Plan Change 16) was notified on 31 March 2005 as a requirement of the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Act 2004.  Amongst other things, the Act required Auckland local authorities to prepare and notify changes to their district plans to provide for integrated land transport and land use provisions that were consistent with the Auckland Regional Growth Strategy.  Plan Change 16 was the former Waitakere City Council’s response to that Act.  It introduced a new chapter into the Policy Section of the District Plan to provide additional objectives and policies concerned with the management of growth.  Plan Change 16 was similar to the Auckland Regional Council Plan Change 6 (ARC Plan Change 6), albeit at a territorial local authority scale. 

6.       Thirteen appeals to Plan Change 16 remained unresolved as at 1 November 2010, and they fell into two groups.  The larger group of eight appellants comprised retail appellants who were involved in appeals to the Auckland Regional Council Plan Change 6, relating to the location of retail in town centres and/or along transport corridors (the “Centres and Corridors” group).  The second group of five appellants sought site specific relief for their properties.  Four of those appellants sought that their land be included inside the current Auckland Metropolitan Urban Limit, and one sought an earlier timing for the development of their land.

7.       The eight retail appeals were resolved following joint mediations where all elements of all eight appeals were agreed.  This took considerable time, as the appellants often sought different or conflicting relief for the same policies.  The five site specific appeals were withdrawn by the appellants as a result of the promulgation of the Auckland Plan, which set out Auckland Council’s approach to growth throughout the region. 

Consideration

Local Board Views

8.       This report seeks approval to make operative Plan Change 16 and Issue 5.11 of Plan Change 17 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section).  These are not matters that are within the delegated authority of the western Local Boards (Upper Harbour, Henderson Massey, Waitakere Ranges and Whau).  Consequently the views of the Local Boards have not been sought.  The Local Boards will be notified once Plan Changes 16 and 17 become operative. 

Maori Impact Statement

9.       Making Plan Changes 16 and 17 operative is a procedural matter that does not require iwi consideration.  All the decision making steps in the plan change process are now completed and the plan changes are beyond challenge. Te Kawerau a Maki and Ngati Whatua were consulted during the preparation of Plan Changes 16 and 17. 

General

10.     Under Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act, a local authority must approve a plan change, if all submissions or appeals have been disposed of. Under Clause 20 of the Act, the approved plan change will be publicly notified as becoming operative at least 5 working days before the actual date that it will become operative.

11.     The recommendation to approve and make Plan Changes 16 and 17 operative in full is consistent with the council’s policies and strategies and does not trigger the significance policy.

Implementation Issues

12.     There will be some minor administrative costs involved in making the plan changes operative and the consequential updating of the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section).  These costs are provided for in the existing Regional and Local Planning Department budget.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Plan Change 16 Environment Court Consent Order 1 November 2013 (Under Separate Cover)

 

bView

Plan Change 17 Environment Court Consent Order 11 November 2013 (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Signatories

Authors

Eryn Shields - Team Leader Area Planning & Policy West

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

 


Auckland Development Committee

13 February 2014

 

Private Plan Change 41: Britomart Precinct to be made operative

 

File No.: CP2014/00303

 

  

Purpose

1.       To make operative a Private Plan Change sought by Cooper and Company to amend the height limit on the Seafarers’ site.

Executive Summary

2.       Private Plan Change 41 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Central Area Section 2004) proposes to replace the existing 24m height control on the Seafarers’ site with a stepped height control of 55.24m on the eastern two thirds of the site and 35.40m on the remaining western third of the site and amend site intensity controls, objectives, policies and assessment criteria, to provide for the proposed height limit.  The plan change was approved by the former Auckland City Council in August 2010 but was subject to appeals from the former Auckland Regional Council (ARC), Waikoro Limited with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT) and Kiwi Property Holdings Limited.

3.       On 6 April 2011 the Auckland Council has resolved to adopt the former Auckland Regional Council’s appeal for legal scope to negotiate and mediate with Cooper and Company.  The Council also endorsed the position to retain the existing 24m permitted height on the Seafarers’ site as Council’s position to be defended at Environment Court hearings.

4.       After Environment Court hearings of the plan change appeals in June 2013, the Court released its decision on 24 December 2013 that the Private Plan Change 41 by Cooper and Company be confirmed as per Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 of the decision (see Attachment A).  The Council is now able to make the plan change operative in accordance with the Environment Court’s decision.

5.       As the current operative Britomart Precinct provisions have been rolled over into the Unitary Plan without any changes, it is recommended that Council put in its submission to align the Unitary Plan provisions with the Environment Court’s decision for consistency.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      authorise the Manager Planning Central/Islands to complete the necessary statutory processes required to make operative Private Plan Change 41 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Central Area Section 2004) in accordance with the decision of the Environment Court (decision number [2013] NZEnvC 303) dated 24 December 2013.

b)      authorise the Manager Unitary Plan to put in Council’s submission to amend Britomart Precinct provisions of the Unitary Plan to be consistent with the Environment Court’s decision number [2013] NZEnvC 303 dated 24 December 2013.

 

 

Discussion

6.       Private Plan Change 41 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Central Area Section 2004) proposes to replace the existing 24m height control on the Seafarers’ site with a stepped height control of 55.24m on the eastern two thirds of the site and 35.40m on the remaining western third of the site and amend site intensity controls, objectives, policies and assessment criteria, to provide for the proposed height limit.  The plan change was notified on 21 September 2009.

 


 

Figure 1: Permitted height on the Seafarers’ site proposed under the plan change and  confirmed by Environment Court’s decision

 

           

 

 

7.       After a hearing of submissions, the plan change was approved by the former Auckland City Council on 26 August 2010.

8.       By the close of the appeal period, two appeals were received from the former Auckland Regional Council (ARC) and Waikoro Limited with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT) and Kiwi Property Holdings Limited giving notice to become a party to each appeal.   These appeals primarily seek that former Auckland City Council’s decision on the plan change be reversed because a new height control would allow a building that is significantly out of scale within the Britomart Precinct.

9.       On 6 April 2011 the Auckland Council has resolved to adopt the former Auckland Regional Council’s appeal for legal scope to negotiate and mediate with Cooper and Company.  The Council also endorsed the position to retain the existing 24m permitted height on the Seafarers’ site as Council’s position to be defended at Environment Court hearings.

10.     After Environment Court hearings of the plan change appeals in June 2013, the Court released its decision on 24 December 2014 (decision number [2013] NZEnvC 303) that the Private Plan Change 41 by Cooper and Company which sought to replace the existing 24m height on the Seafarers’ site with a stepped height control of 55.24m and 35.40m be confirmed as per Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 of the decision (see Attachment A).

11.     Through the Environment Court’s decision, the specific design assessment criteria for the Seafarers’ site were strengthened.  A resource consent application for a new building will be assessed as a restricted discretionary activity where Council could decline an application if it does not meet the specified design assessment criteria.

12.     The Council is now required to amend the district plan giving effect to the Environment Court’s decision and make the plan change operative.  As the current operative Britomart Precinct provisions have been rolled over into the Unitary Plan without any changes, it is recommended that Council put in its submission to align the Unitary Plan provisions with the Environment Court’s decision for consistency.

 

Consideration

Local Board Views

13.     The plan change is now at the final stage of being integrated into the district plan. This stage does not require input from the Waitemata Local Board.

Maori Impact Statement

14.     Britomart Precinct has significant heritage and cultural value for Tangata Whenua.  Many sites within the precinct are of significance to local iwi with interest within the Auckland central area. No submissions or appeals were received from the local iwi in relation to the private plan change.  The outcome of the appeals is unlikely to have adverse effects on the local iwi.

General

15.     There will be some minor administrative costs involved in making the proposed plan change “operative” and updating the district plan.

Implementation Issues

16.     There will be some minor administrative costs involved in making the proposed plan change “operative” and updating the district plan.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Britomart Precinct Provisions (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Signatories

Authors

Panjama Ampanthong - Principal Planner – CBD and Islands – Operative Plans

Authorisers

Megan Tyler - Manager Planning - Central/Islands, Regional & Local Planning

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

 


Auckland Development Committee

13 February 2014

 

Request to make Private Plan Change 353 to 45A Comins Crescent, Mission Bay Operative in the Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999)

 

File No.: CP2013/28114

 

  

Purpose

1.       To request that the Auckland Development Committee make Plan Change 353 operative to the Auckland District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999) under the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.

2.       To request that the Auckland Development Committee authorise the Manager Planning Central and Islands to complete the statutory process required to make Plan Change 353 operative under Clause 20 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Executive Summary

3.       Private plan change 353 proposed rezoning 45A Comins Crescent, Mission Bay from Open Space 3 to Residential 6a. All submissions and appeals have been resolved and under Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991, Auckland Council must approve this plan change to make it operative in the Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999).

4.       The plan change was publically notified on 21 November 2012 and eight submissions were received. A hearing was held on 7 May 2013 and the Hearings Panel’s decision approving the plan change was released on 10 May 2013.

5.       The decision was subsequently appealed to the Environment Court by Robyn Dale Christian who sought to have the decision overturned. No Section 274 notices were received on this appeal.

6.       A prehearing conference and court assisted mediation were held and the appellant later withdrew the appeal on 12 October 2013.

 

Recommendations

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      make Plan Change 353 operative in the Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999) in accordance with the council decision dated 10 May 2013 in Attachment B of the report and in line with Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.

b)      authorise the Manager Planning Central and Islands to complete the statutory process to make Plan Change 353 operative in the Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999) in accordance with the council decision dated 10 may 2013 in Attachment B of the report and in line with Clause 20 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.

 

Discussion

Background

7.       Proposed Plan Change 353 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999) (the District Plan) is a private plan change request by F & O Mishriki to rezone 45A Comins Crescent, Mission Bay from Open Space 3 (Organised Recreation) to Residential 6a (Medium Intensity). A locality plan is shown in Attachment A.

8.       The Regional Development and Operations Committee accepted the application for notification on 15 November 2012 and it was publicly notified on 21 November 2012. Eight submissions were received. 

Decision of the Hearings Panel

9.       The hearing was held on 7 May 2013 and the eight submitters raised concerns over infrastructure, traffic, density, amenity and outlook, vegetation, retention of the open space zone, preservation of the Scout Hall and noise. The submitters preferred a Residential 5 zoning. The hearing report recommended a Residential 6a zoning and the Hearings Panel accepted this assessment.

10.     The decision concludes that no evidence was received to persuade the commissioners that another zone would be more appropriate than the Residential 6a zone. The decision approving the plan change was received on 10 May 2013 and was publicly notified on 20 May 2013. A copy of the decision is attached in Attachment B.

11.     Robyn Dale Christian lodged an appeal on the decision to the Environment Court seeking to have the decision overturned. No Section 274 notices were received on the appeal.

Environment Court Proceedings

 

12.     A prehearing conference was held on 7 August 2013 which resulted in an order of the Environment Court for discovery for Auckland Council to provide the appellant with all relevant documents relating to the plan change.

13.     Court assisted mediation was held on 2 October 2013 and no agreement was reached between the parties. The appellant withdrew the appeal on 12 October 2013. A copy of the withdrawal is shown in Attachment C.

Consideration

Local Board Views

14.     This report addresses a procedural matter under the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA) to make Plan Change 353 fully operative. All the decision making steps in the plan change process are complete and the plan change is beyond challenge. For this reason, no local board views were sought at this stage.

Maori Impact Statement

15.     Iwi were served with a copy of the plan change when it was notified. Iwi did not submit on the plan change. This report addresses a procedural matter under the First Schedule of the RMA to make Plan Change 353 fully operative. All the decision making steps in the plan change process are complete and the plan change is beyond challenge.

General

16.     The recommendation to make Plan Change 353 operative is consistent with the council’s policies and strategies and does not trigger the significance policy.

Implementation Issues

17.     The approved plan change will be notified as becoming operative at least 5 working days before the date it becomes operative under Clause 20 of the First Schedule of the RMA.

18.     There will be some minor administrative costs to make the plan change operative and these are provided for in the existing Regional and Local Planning Department budget.


 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Locality Map

149

bView

Hearings Committee Decision

151

cView

Environment Court Appeal Withdrawal Notice ENV-2013-AKL-000098

163

     

Signatories

Authors

Anna Turner - Planner

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

 


Auckland Development Committee

13 February 2014

 


Auckland Development Committee

13 February 2014

 












Auckland Development Committee

13 February 2014

 




Auckland Development Committee

13 February 2014

 

Environment Court decision on (Anns Creek) Plan Change 88 and Private Plan Change 233 to the Isthmus Section of the Auckland Council District Plan

 

File No.: CP2014/01183

 

  

Purpose

1.       To request that the Auckland Development Committee make Plan Changes 88 and 223 to the Auckland District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999) operative in accordance with the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.

2.       To request that the Auckland Development Committee authorise the Manager Planning Central and Islands to complete the statutory process required to make Plan Changes 88 and 223 operative under Clause 20 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Executive Summary

3.       Plan Change 88 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999) (‘Isthmus District Plan’) sought to schedule the undeveloped portion of a property at 781, 787, and 791-793 Great South Road, Southdown (the ‘Anns Creek site’) as a Category A “Significant Ecological Area” (SEA) – ‘Anns Creek Lava Flow Wetland and Shrubland’.  In turn Plan Change 223, a private plan change requested by the land owner TR Group Limited, sought to re-position the Special Purpose 3 zoning within the Anns Creek site (in order to reflect a change in the location of the underlying railway easement) and rezone a strip of land in the middle portion of the site from Open Space 1 to Business 6.

4.       Plan Changes 88 and 223 were appealed, as were subsequent decisions on resource consent applications to fill 4.46 hectares of the Anns Creek site for use as a transport depot.  All of the appeals were heard by the Environment Court (EC) in 2011.  The EC’s decision granted consent to a modified development of the site, with the area proposed to be scheduled as an SEA under Plan Change 88 being reduced to exclude the development footprint authorised by the decision.  The EC also directed that the zoning changes proposed under Plan Change 223 be given effect to.

5.       Following a subsequent appeal to the High Court, negotiations were progressed between the Council and TR Group to determine the final development footprint for the Anns Creek site and agree conditions of resource consent (in accordance with the directions made by the EC in 2011).  These matters were finally resolved in December 2013 and the EC subsequently made its final determination on the appeals in January 2014.  All of the appeals have been resolved and under Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991, Auckland Council must approve Plan Changes 88 and 223 to make them operative in the Isthmus District Plan.

 


 

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      make Plan Changes 88 and 223 operative in the Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999) in agreement with the Environment Court decision in Attachment B of the report and in accordance with Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.

b)      authorise the Manager Planning Central and Islands to complete the statutory process to make Plan Changes 88 and 223 operative in the Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999) in accordance with the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991, including the determination of the operative date and notification date.

 

 

Discussion

Anns Creek Site

6.       The Anns Creek site at 781, 787, and 791-793 Great South Road in Southdown (locality plan shown in Attachment A) has significant ecological values – including lava flow shrublands, a volcanic aquifer-fed sequence of wetlands, and regionally significant areas of inanga (whitebait) habitat.  Notwithstanding these ecological values, the majority of the site has a Business 6 zoning in the Isthmus District Plan as the result of an Environment Court decision in 2001.  That decision highlighted the importance of achieving a suitable balance between reasonable use and conservation.

7.       The site also contains a strip of land zoned Special Purpose 3 (providing for a future connection between the North Auckland and North Island Main Trunk railways) and areas of Open Space 1 zoning.  Part of the site is designated for railway purposes.

History of Plan Changes and Environment Court Appeals

8.       Plan Change 88 to the Isthmus District Plan sought to schedule the majority of the undeveloped portion of the Anns Creek site as a Category A “Significant Ecological Area” (SEA) – ‘Anns Creek Lava Flow Wetland and Shrubland’.  A company associated with TR Group (Newbury Holdings Limited) appealed the Auckland City Council’s (ACC) decision to approve scheduling of the site, and the Auckland Regional Council (ARC) joined the appeal as a section 274 party in support of scheduling.

9.       Plan Change 88 was notified in 2004 and applied to a number of sites across the Isthmus in addition to the Anns Creek site.  In 2010 ACC made the plan change operative in part, with the site specific exception of the proposed SEA at Anns Creek.

10.     Plan Change 223, a private plan change requested by TR Group and notified in 2007, sought to re-position the Special Purpose 3 zoning within the Anns Creek site (in order to reflect a change in the location of the underlying railway easement) and rezone a strip of land in the middle portion of the site from Open Space 1 to Business 6.  The ACC approved Plan Change 223 and its decision was appealed by the ARC, with the Director-General of Conservation joining the appeal as a section 274 party.

11.     In 2008 TR Group made resource consent applications to the ACC and ARC to fill 4.46 hectares of a tidally influenced portion of the site in order to extend its transport depot.  Commissioners appointed by ACC granted the consents required under the Isthmus District Plan and this decision was appealed by the ARC.  The Director-General of Conservation and Transpower joined the appeal as section 274 parties, both having sought that consent be declined.  The ARC declined to grant all but one of the necessary regional plan consents and this decision was appealed by TR Group.

Environment Court Proceedings

12.     All of the above-mentioned appeals were heard by the Environment Court (EC) in 2011.  In its full decision (November 2011) the EC determined the following:

i.    Resource consents – Consents are granted to a modified development, with the parameters for determining the development footprint being set out in the decision.  TR Group had originally sought to develop approximately 50 percent of the site, but the EC granted consent to develop approximately 30 percent.

ii.    Plan Change 88 – Part of the Anns Creek site is to be scheduled as a “Significant Ecological Area” (SEA), with the scheduled area to exclude the development footprint now authorised by the grant of resource consents.

iii.   Plan Change 223 – The position of the Special Purpose 3 zoning is to be amended in order to align with the underlying railway easement.  The strip of land currently zoned Open Space 1 in the middle portion of the site is to be rezoned Business 6.

13.     The EC’s decision was subsequently appealed to the High Court on points of law by both TR Group and the Auckland Council.  In its May 2013 decision the High Court dismissed TR Group’s appeal and also quashed that part of the EC’s decision awarding costs against the Council.

14.     During the remainder of 2013 there were ongoing negotiations between the Council and TR Group to determine the final development footprint for the site and agree conditions of resource consent, in accordance with the directions made by the EC in its November 2011 decision.

15.     These matters were finally resolved in December 2013 and the EC subsequently made its final determination on the appeals in January 2014 (copy provided in Attachment B).

16.     The necessary changes have been made to Planning Map H13 (Map Nos. 1 and 2) and Appendix 3C in the Isthmus District Plan to give effect to the EC’s decision on Plan Changes 88 and 223, and these plan changes can now be made operative.

Consideration

Local Board Views

17.     This report addresses a procedural matter under the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA) to make Plan Changes 88 and 223 fully operative.  All the decision making steps in the plan change process are complete and the plan changes are beyond challenge.  For this reason, no local board views should be sought at this stage.

Maori Impact Statement

18.     Iwi were served with a copy of the plan changes when they were notified.  Iwi did not submit on the plan changes.  All the decision making steps in the plan change process are complete and the plan changes are beyond challenge.  For this reason, no iwi views should be sought at this stage.

General

19.     The recommendation to make Plan Changes 88 and 223 operative is consistent with the council’s policies and strategies and does not trigger the significance policy.

Implementation Issues

20.     The approved plan changes will be notified as becoming operative at least 5 working days before the date they become operative under Clause 20 of the First Schedule of the RMA.

21.     There will be some minor administrative costs to make the plan changes operative and these are provided for in the existing Regional and Local Planning Department budget.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Attachment A - Locality Plan

171

bView

Attachment B - Environment Court decision 2012-04 Newbuty Holdings v Auckland Council  (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Signatories

Authors

Hyacinth Fernandes - Senior Administrator

Celia Davison - Team Leader Planning - Central/Islands

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

 


Auckland Development Committee

13 February 2014

 



Auckland Development Committee

13 February 2014

 

Environment Court decision on Plan Change 163 (Residential 1) to the Isthmus section of the Auckland Council District Plan

 

File No.: CP2013/27204

 

  

Purpose

1.       To seek approval from the Auckland Development Committee to make Proposed Plan Change 163 (PC 163) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Isthmus section) (District Plan) operative in full in accordance with the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act.

Executive Summary

2.       PC163 was a council initiated plan change that amended the provisions of the existing Residential 1 and 2 zones to provide for more protection of the special amenity and character of those zones.

3.       Decisions have been made on the appeals to the Residential 2 component of PC 163 and that part of the plan change is operative in the District Plan.

4.       A decision was issued on the Residential 1 appeals to PC 163 on 2 July 2013 (Attachment A). This decision was challenged by the appellant (New Zealand Heavy Haulage Limited) and the hearing was reconvened on 1 October 2013. Following this hearing a final decision was issued by the Environment Court on 8 October 2013 (Attachment B). A correction to the intituling was made on 11 October 2013 (Attachment C). The decision is now beyond challenge with no party appealing to the High Court. 

5.       The decision makes changes to the text of Parts 2, 4 and 7 of the District Plan.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      approve the text changes outlined in the 2 July and 8 October 2013 decisions issued by the Environment Court for Proposed Plan Change 163 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Isthmus Section), as shown in Attachments A and B to be made operative pursuant to Clause 17 to the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.

b)      delegate to the Manager, Planning Central and Islands to complete the statutory processes required to make Proposed Plan Change 163 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Isthmus Section), operative in full in accordance with the Resource Management Act 1991, including the determination of the operative date and notification date.

 

 

Discussion

6.       The final parts of Plan Change 163 are decided by this last Environment Court decision issued on 8 October 2013. The Plan Change aims to strengthen the provisions about special character in the Residential 1 and 2 zones including the need to require a restricted discretionary resource consent for the demolition or removal of pre 1940 buildings.

7.       The decision of the Court confirms the Council’s position that the Residential 1 zone is intact and all pre 1940 buildings (except accessory buildings) should have the control imposed. This outcome is different to the Residential 2 zone where maps were produced to show which sites should have the control imposed and which should not based on expert evidence.

8.       The principles of special character protection, as set out in the decisions on Plan Change 163, have fed into the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP). The PAUP wording now reflects the Environment Court decisions’ wording.

9.       The background to the Plan Change and the resolution of the Residential 2 zone appeals is set out in reports to the Regional Development and Operations Committees on 16 May 2013 and 24 July 2013.

Consideration

Local Board Views

10.     This report addresses a procedural matter under Schedule 1, Part 1 of the RMA in making PC163 operative in full.  All the decision making steps in the plan change process are now completed and the plan change is beyond challenge. No Local Board views were sought in compiling this report.

Maori Impact Statement

11.     This report addresses a procedural matter under Schedule 1, Part 1 of the RMA in making PC163 operative in full.  All the decision making steps in the plan change process are now completed and the plan change is beyond challenge. Iwi were consulted and had opportunity to be involved in the plan change from its inception in 2005.

General

12.     Under Clause 17 of Schedule 1 of the RMA, a local authority must approve a plan change, if all submissions or appeals have been disposed of. Under Clause 20 of the Act, the approved plan change will be notified as becoming operative at least 5 working days before the date that it will become operative.

13.     The recommendation to approve and make PC163 operative in full is consistent with the council’s policies and strategies and does not trigger the significance policy.

Implementation Issues

14.     There will be some minor administrative costs involved in making the plan change operative and consequential updating of the Auckland Council District Plan (Isthmus Section).  These costs are provided for in the existing Regional and Local Planning Department budget.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

2 July 2013 Environment Court Decision on PC 163 (Under Separate Cover)

 

bView

8 October 2013 Environment Court Decision on PC 163 (Under Separate Cover)

 

cView

11 October 2013 correction issued by Environment Court on PC 163 (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Signatories

Authors

Fiona Sprott - Principal Planner

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

 


Auckland Development Committee

13 February 2014

 

Proposed Plan Change 30 (PC30) & Consequential Variation 6 to Plan Change 14 to Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) - To be made fully Operative

 

File No.: CP2014/00377

 

  

Purpose

1.       To seek approval from the Auckland Development Committee to make Proposed Plan Change 30 & consequential Variation 6 to Proposed Plan Change 14 to the Auckland District Plan: Franklin Section (PC 30) fully operative, following a recent decision of the High Court.

Executive Summary

2.       PC30 was prepared to improve the efficiency of the Operative Franklin District Plan. The focus of PC30 included improving consistency and providing additional opportunities for activities in rural and coastal zones. A number of standards were reviewed. A joint hearing for PC30 was held and decisions released on 11 July 2012.

 

3.       An appeal to the Environment Court was lodged by Byerley Park to have the definition of “equestrian centre and horse training centre” amended to include on site residential accommodation. In the interim all other parts of PC30 were made operative. This appeal was initially successful but this Environment Court decision has now been overturned in the High Court. The High Court considered that as the definition of “equestrian centre and horse training centre” was not part of PC30 as notified, there was no basis to initiate any amendment.

 

4.       As a result of all appeals being resolved the opportunity now exists to declare all parts of PC30 and consequential Variation 6 to Plan Change 14 fully operative.

 

5.       A copy of the Environment Court and High Court decisions is attached as Attachment A and Attachment B respectively.

 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      approve, in accordance with the decision of the High Court dated17 December 2013 that Proposed Plan Change 30 and consequential Variation 6 to 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 coordinate the statutory processes required under Clause 20 to the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991, to make Plan Change 30 and consequential Variation 6 to Plan Change 14 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) operative, including the determination of the operative and notification date. 

 

 

 

Discussion

6.       PC30 proposed district wide changes to 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). A joint hearing for PC30 was held and decisions released on 11 July 2012. The hearing involved Auckland Council, Waikato and Hauraki District Councils.

 

7.       PC30’s decisions amend the following Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) topics: home occupations, zoning of land as recreation reserve, rural activities, temporary activities, standards for subdivision, rural residential zone criteria, car-parking standards, loading, access and transportation, business zone standards, sleep-outs, signs, network and other utilities, scheduled site references, and residential zone and village zone standards.

 

8.       After the release of decisions one appeal was received. This appeal was from Byerley Park Limited which sought a change to the Part 50 definitions of “Equestrian Centre and Horse Training Centre” in the Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) so that it included accommodation for staff and their families to live on such premises. As the appeal was specific to one definition, all other elements of PC30 and variation 6 were made operative in December 2012 except for the definition subject to appeal.

 

9.       The Environment Court in a decision dated 7 May 2013 allowed the appeal by Byerley Park and amended the definition of horse training facility to include provision for housing and accommodation of staff.

 

10.     Council appealed the decision to the High Court. The basis for the appeal was that the definition as amended by the Environment Court was ‘out of scope’ as it never formed part of PC30 as publicly notified. The High Court in a judgement dated 17 December 2013 agreed with the council and overturned the decision of the Environment Court. It concluded that section 293 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) relied on by the Environment Court, did not give a power to amend part of an operative plan which was not the subject of a proposed plan change or affected by a proposed plan change.

 

Consideration

Local Board Views

11.     This report addresses a procedural matter in making PC30 operative. The Franklin Local Board will be notified of PC30 becoming operative.

Maori Impact Statement

12.    This report addresses a procedural matter in making PC30 operative. Iwi will be notified of PC30 becoming operative.

General

13.    Declaring PC30 operative is the last phase of the RMA process for the Plan Change.


Implementation Issues

14.     The recommendation to approve and make PC30 operative is consistent with council’s policies and strategies and does not trigger the significance policy.

 

15.    Pursuant to clause 17 of the First Schedule of the RMA, council can now approve PC30 and once approved, publicly notify the Plan Change as operative under Clause 20 of the First Schedule of the RMA.

 

16.    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

No.

Title

Page

aView

Environment Court Decision (Under Separate Cover)

 

bView

High Court Decision (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Signatories

Authors

Barry Mosley - Principal Planner South

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

 


Auckland Development Committee

13 February 2014

 

Plan Change 30 (Beachlands Village: New Avenues) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) to be made Operative

 

File No.: CP2014/00417

 

  

Purpose

1.       To seek approval from the Auckland Development Committee to make operative Plan Change 30 (Beachlands Village: New Avenues) (PC30) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section).

Executive Summary

2.       PC30 was publicly notified on 5 June 2010. The Plan Change proposes an extension to the south of the residential area of the Beachlands settlement. It seeks to rezone 122 hectares of rural land to low density residential, providing approximately 750 new residential units.

3.       The council’s decision (former Manukau City Council) on PC30 was released on 30 March 2011. Six appeals to the council’s decision were filed with the Environment Court. The Environment Court issued a consent order on 4 April 2013, and then a subsequent direction on 22 August 2013, resolving these appeals. Council can now approve PC30 to be made fully operative.

4.       A copy of PC30 as amended by the Environment Court consent order and direction is contained in Attachment B.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      approve, in accordance with the consent order and direction issued by the Environment Court, Plan Change 30 (Beachlands Village: New Avenues) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) (Attachment B) to 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 complete the statutory processes required to make Plan Change 30 (Beachlands Village: New Avenues) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) operative pursuant to Clause 20 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991, including determination of the operative and notification date.

 

 

Discussion

5.       PC30 is a council initiated Plan Change. It provides an extension to the south of the existing Beachlands settlement. Attachment A illustrates the location of the Beachlands settlement in the Auckland region. PC30 rezones 122 hectares of rural land to provide for approximately 750 new dwellings.

6.       Beachlands settlement was laid out in the 1920s as a “Marine Garden Suburb”. The village has developed with a strongly defined character. PC30 adopts the Beachlands Village New Avenues Structure Plan to guide the future expansion of the Beachlands settlement, including:

•        Extension of the existing grid roading network of Beachlands into the structure plan area, with three new “avenues” intended to reflect the existing character of Beachlands.

•        A public open space network runs through the middle of the Plan Change area and is based on enhanced natural areas including stormwater edge areas.

•        There are “edge” requirements in the Plan Change, including a substantial landscaped buffer, that are intended to define the boundaries of the new residential area from the rural areas beyond.

•        There are a number of building standards that are intended to ensure built development has a rural village character.

7.       Six appeals were filed in respect of PC30. The key issues raised included: matters relating to stormwater management; effects on the surrounding rural land; application of the grid roading layout; and defensible boundary and edge treatment along the new boundary of the Beachlands settlement.

8.       On 4 April 2013, the Environment Court issued a consent order resolving these appeals, except for the provisions which referred to the new business area proposed on the adjoining site, as part of Private Plan Change 30A (Beachlands Village Business Centre Zone). At that stage, Private Plan Change 30A was awaiting the Environment Court’s decision on its own outstanding appeals. On 10 May 2013, the Environment Court issued an interim decision approving Private Plan Change 30A with modifications. Consequently, on 22 August 2013, the Environment Court issued a direction confirming the outstanding matters for PC30. The appeal process did not change the purpose or intent of PC30. The council can now approve the Plan Change to be made fully operative. 

Consideration

Local Board Views

9.       This report addresses a procedural matter in making PC30 operative. The Franklin Local Board will be notified once PC30 becomes operative.

Maori Impact Statement

10.     This report addresses a procedural matter in making PC30 operative. Iwi will be notified of PC30 becoming operative.

General

11.     Declaring PC30 operative is the last phase of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) process for the Plan change. The recommendation to make PC30 operative is consistent with the council’s policies and strategies and does not trigger the significance policy.

Implementation Issues

12.     Pursuant to Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the RMA, the Auckland Development Committee can now approve PC30 and once approved, notify the Plan Change as operative under Clause 20 of the First Schedule of the RMA.

13.     There will be some administrative costs involved in making PC30 operative and consequential updating of the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section). These costs can be accommodated within the Regional and Local Planning Department’s existing budgets.


 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Location Map

185

bView

Operative Version of PC30 (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Signatories

Authors

Sukhdeep Singh - Principal Planner

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

 



Auckland Development Committee

13 February 2014

 



Auckland Development Committee

13 February 2014

 

Request to make Private Plan Change 37 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) - Patumahoe Hill Structure Plan Operative

 

File No.: CP2014/00466

 

  

Purpose

1.       This report seeks approval from the Auckland Development Committee to make Private Plan Change 37 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) - Patumahoe Hill Structure Plan operative in accordance with Clauses 17 and 20 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Executive Summary

2.       Private Plan Change 37 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) (PPC37) sought to rezone 9.93 hectares at 24 and 36A Kingseat Road, Patumahoe from Rural to Village and Village Business.

3.       PPC37 was publicly notified on 15 May 2012 and 19 submissions and one further submission received. Following a hearing, the council’s decision to approve the plan change with amendments was released on 8 October 2013. No appeals were received.

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

 

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      approve Private Plan Change 37 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section)  - Patumahoe Hill Structure Plan 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 Private Plan Change 37 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section)  - Patumahoe Hill Structure Plan operative pursuant to Clause 20 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

 

 

Discussion

5.       PPC37 sought to rezone 9.93 hectares at 24 and 36A Kingseat Road, Patumahoe from Rural to Village and Village Business. The proposed change in use required a variation to the existing Patumahoe stormwater network discharge consent.

6.       PPC37 was publicly notified on 15 May 2012 and nineteen submissions were received. One further submission was received by the Private Plan Change applicant, which responded to the points raised in the primary submissions. The variation to the stormwater discharge consent was notified at the same time as PC37 and five submissions were received.

7.       Following a hearing on the plan change and variation, the council’s decision to approve PPC37 with amendments was released on 8 October 2013. No appeals to the PPC37 or the variation were received.

8.       The Committee can now approve the plan change to be made operative.

Consideration

Local Board Views

9.       The views of the Franklin Local Board have not been sought for the purposes of this report, which addresses a procedural matter in making PPC37 operative. The board will be notified of PPC37 becoming operative in the District Plan when this occurs.

Maori Impact Statement

10.     Consultation was carried out by the applicant with Ngāti Tamaoho and Ngāti Te Ata who have joint mana whenua over the Patumahoe area. A Cultural Impact Assessment was prepared by Ngāti Tamaoho and Ngāti Te Ata and included in the suite of technical documents that accompanied the private plan change request.

11.     Both Ngāti Tamaoho and Ngāti Te Ata continued their involvement in the statutory process by making submissions to PPC37. The two submissions were similar and expressed concern that the recommendations of the Cultural Impact Assessment were not fully complied with and that they considered further negotiations in the areas of stormwater, heritage, rural values and lot sizes was required.

12.    Ngāti Tamaoho and Ngāti Te Ata presented their submissions at the hearing and sought that PPC37 be declined.

13.    No appeal has been received from Ngāti Tamaoho or Ngāti Te Ata. 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 can be met from the Regional and Local Planning Department’s budget.

Implementation Issues

15.     The recommendation to approve and make PPC37 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.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Private Plan Change 37 Operative Version (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Signatories

Authors

Lisa Miers - Planner

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

 


Auckland Development Committee

13 February 2014

 

Request to make Private Plan Change 36 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) - Bombay Motorway and Rural Services Special Zone operative.

 

File No.: CP2014/00472

 

  

Purpose

1.       This report seeks approval from the Auckland Development Committee to make Private Plan Change 36 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section): Bombay Motorway and Rural Services Special Zone operative in accordance with Clauses 17 and 20 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Executive Summary

2.       Private Plan Change 36 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) (PPC36) sought to rezone 3.5 hectares at 2038 Great South Road, Bombay from Rural to a new Motorway and Rural Services Special Zone.

3.       PPC36 was publically notified on 18 September 2012. Twelve submissions were received.  Following a hearing, the council’s decision to approve the Plan Change with amendments was released on 12 September 2013. One appeal to PPC36 was received and this has now been resolved via a Consent Order.

4.       The Auckland Development Committee (the Committee) can now approve the Plan Change to be made operative.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      approve Private Plan Change 36 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section): Bombay Motorway and Rural Services Special Zone as amended by Consent Order ENV-2013-AKL-000149 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 Private Plan Change 36 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section): Bombay Motorway and Rural Services Special Zone operative pursuant to Clause 20 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

 

 

Discussion

5.       PPC36 sought to rezone 3.5 hectares at 2038 Great South Road, Bombay from Rural to a new Motorway and Rural Services Special Zone. The proposed zoning provides for rural service activities within the southern portion of the site and fast food, café activities and a service station in the northern portion of the site.

6.       PPC36 was publically notified on 18 September 2012. Twelve submissions were received. 

7.       Following a hearing, the council’s decision to approve the Plan Change with amendments was released on 12 September 2013.

8.       An appeal by BP Oil New Zealand Limited was received. The appeal sought modifications to a stormwater management rule. The Private Plan Change applicant, Atlas Concrete Limited, registered as a S274 party to the appeal. The BP site is immediately downstream of the PPC36 site.

9.       The relief sought was accepted by the applicant and council and the appeal has now been resolved via Consent Order.

10.     The Committee can now approve the plan change to be made operative.

Consideration

Local Board Views

11.     The views of the Franklin Local Board have not been sought for the purposes of this report, which addresses a procedural matter in making PPC36 operative. The board will be notified of PPC36 becoming operative in the District Plan when this occurs.

Maori Impact Statement

12.   The Regional Development and Operations Committee requested that the applicant undertake consultation with Iwi prior to the notification of PPC36. Consultation was carried out by the applicant with Ngāti Tamaoho and Ngāti Te Ata. 

13.     Ngāti Tamaoho and Ngāti Te Ata continued their involvement in the statutory process by making submissions to PPC36. Both Ngāti Tamaoho and Ngāti Te Ata indicated their intention to appear at the hearing.

14.     The Ngāti Te Ata submission raised concerns regarding the statutory obligations in the Resource Management Act 1991, considered additional work was required to assess iwi and cultural issues and sought detail around the disposal and revocation of public reserves and what this means for iwi trying to settle their Treaty of Waitangi claims. There are no public reserves in the plan change area and PPC36 is not the vehicle to address treaty settlement claims.

15.     The submission from Ngāti Tamaoho raised concerns regarding the proposed watercourse setback provisions and sought the provisions be changed from 10m to 20m and the works within the stream setback reduced.

16.     Ngāti Tamaoho presented their submission at the hearing. Ngāti Te Ata did not attend the hearing.

17.     The watercourse setback provision in PPC36 was subsequently changed in the decision from 10m to 20m.

18.     No appeal has been received from Ngāti Tamaoho or Ngāti Te Ata. Iwi will be notified of the plan change becoming operative.

General

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

Implementation Issues

20.    The recommendation to approve and make PPC36 operative is consistent with the council’s policies and strategies and does not trigger the significance policy.

21.    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.

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

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Private Plan Change 36 Operative Version (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Signatories

Authors

Lisa Miers - Planner

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

 


Auckland Development Committee

13 February 2014

 

Private Plan Change 30A (Beachlands Village Business Centre Zone) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) to be made Operative

 

File No.: CP2014/00474

 

  

Purpose

1.       To seek approval from the Auckland Development Committee to make operative Private Plan Change 30A (Beachlands Village Business Centre Zone) (PPC30A) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section).

Executive Summary

2.       PPC30A was publicly notified on 5 June 2010. It relates to currently rural zoned land south of the developed area of the Beachlands settlement. PPC30A provides for a new commercial centre on the corner of Whitford-Maraetai Road and Beachlands Road in Beachlands.

3.       The council’s decision (former Manukau City Council) on PPC30A was released on 30 March 2011. Three appeals to the council’s decision were filed with the Environment Court. Following an Environment Court hearing on the appeal from Pohutukawa Coast Community Association, the Court issued its final decision on 17 September 2013, approving the Private Plan Change with minor modifications. Council can now approve PPC30A to be made fully operative.

4.       A copy of PPC30A as amended by the Environment Court Decision is contained in Attachment B.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      approve, in accordance with the decision issued by the Environment Court, Private Plan Change 30A (Beachlands Village Business Centre Zone) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) (Attachment B) to be made operative in accordance with Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA);

b)      authorise the Manager Planning South to complete the statutory processes required to make Private Plan Change 30A (Beachlands Village Business Centre Zone) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) operative pursuant to Clause 20 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991, including determination of the operative and notification date.

 

 

Discussion

5.       PPC30A is a privately initiated Plan Change from Progressive Enterprises Limited. It seeks to rezone approximately six hectares of rural land south of the Beachlands settlement to enable the establishment of a comprehensive new commercial centre on the corner of Whitford-Maraetai Road and Beachlands Road. Attachment A illustrates the location of the Beachlands settlement in the Auckland region.

6.       PPC30A adopts the Beachlands Village Business Centre Concept Plan to set a number of fundamental parameters for the design outcome desired for the new business area, including:

·    development outcome which responds to the open, outdoors-oriented character, rural and coastal context and special qualities of the Beachlands settlement;

·    identification of the basic structure, including roading and block patterns, location of the supermarket, and open space areas and plazas;

·    implementation of the Beachlands Village Business Centre Landscape Design Framework to enable an integrated landscape design outcome.

 

7.       Three appeals were filed in respect of PPC30A, from: Pohutukawa Coast Community Association (PCCA), Progressive Enterprises Limited and L & C McKay. The appeals from Progressive Enterprises Limited and L & C McKay were in relation to matters of detail in the text of the Plan Change and those matters were agreed between the parties and the council. 

8.       The appeal from PCCA sought that PPC30A be declined. In particular the PCCA appeal was based on the adequacy of the existing resources within Beachlands to provide opportunities for commercial development to meet Beachlands ongoing needs. PCCA also raised the concern regarding the sustainability of the existing commercial area following the establishment of the new centre on the edge of Beachlands. 

9.       An Environment Court hearing was conducted in early 2013 to hear the PCCA appeal. On 10 May 2013, the Court issued an interim decision dismissing the PCCA appeal and approving the Private Plan Change subject to the removal of the requirement to develop the Main Street in the first stage of the development. The Court was of the view that this requirement should be delayed until the population growth justifies it. On 17 September 2013, the Court issued its final decision. The appeal process did not change the purpose or intent of PPC30A. The council can now approve PPC30A to be made fully operative.  

Consideration

Local Board Views

10.     This report addresses a procedural matter in making PPC30A operative. The Franklin Local Board will be notified once PPC30A becomes operative.

Maori Impact Statement

11.     Making PPC30A operative is a procedural matter that does not require iwi consideration. Iwi will be notified of PPC30A becoming operative.

General

12.     The recommendation to make PPC30A operative is consistent with the council’s policies and strategies and does not trigger the significance policy.

Implementation Issues

13.     Pursuant to Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the RMA, Auckland Development Committee can now approve PPC30A and once approved, notify the Private Plan Change as operative under Clause 20 of the First Schedule of the RMA.

14.     There will be some administrative costs involved in making the PPC30A operative and consequential updating of the Auckland Council District Plan: Manukau Section. These costs can be accommodated within the Regional and Local Planning Department’s existing budgets.

 


 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Location Map

197

bView

Operative Version of PPC30A  (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Signatories

Authors

Sukhdeep Singh - Principal Planner

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

 



Auckland Development Committee

13 February 2014

 



Auckland Development Committee

13 February 2014

 

Private Plan Change 36 (Wiri North) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) to be made Operative

 

File No.: CP2014/00485

 

  

Purpose

1.       To seek approval from the Auckland Development Committee to make operative Private Plan Change 36 (Wiri North) (PPC36) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section).

Executive Summary

2.       PPC36 was publicly notified on 12 November 2010. It seeks to rezone approximately 40 hectares of land in the Wiri industrial area from Quarry Zone to Industry Zone.

3.       The council’s decision on PPC36 was released in November 2011. Two appeals to the council’s decision were filed with the Environment Court. On 31 July 2013, the Environment Court issued a consent order resolving these appeals. Council can now approve PPC36 to be made fully operative.

4.       A copy of PPC36 as amended by the Environment Court consent order is contained in Attachment B.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      approve, in accordance with the consent order issued by the Environment Court, Private Plan Change 36 (Wiri North) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) (Attachment B) to be made operative in accordance with Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA);

b)      authorise the Manager Planning South to complete the statutory processes required to make Private Plan Change 36 (Wiri North) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) operative pursuant to Clause 20 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991, including determination of the operative and notification date.

 

Discussion

5.       PPC36 is a privately initiated Plan Change from Winstone Aggregates (Winstones). The site is approximately 40ha in size and located at 114 Roscommon Road (see Attachment A). It is currently in a rehabilitation phase following the completion of the quarrying activities. It seeks to rezone the site from Quarry Zone to Industry Zone.

6.       PPC36 adopts the Wiri North Structure Plan to enable comprehensive development of the site. PPC36 contains the following key provisions for the proposed industrial area:

 

·    Identifies the proposed roads.

·    As the current level of the quarry floor is lower than the level of the surrounding water table, stormwater and groundwater disposal issues are addressed to reduce the risk of flooding.

·    Given the close proximity of the site to the Wiri Oil Terminal, special provisions are introduced to manage the risk issues associated with the Terminal as a hazardous facility.

·    Considers the relationship of the site to the Wiri North Stonefields Waahi Tapu area, to the Wiri North Geological Feature and safety issues in relation to the stability of the Cliff Hazard area.

 

7.       Two appeals were filed in respect of PPC36, one from Winstones and the other from Wiri Oil Services Limited (WOSL). The Winstones appeal sought a number of amendments to the provisions relating to urban design, iwi consultation, geological features and stormwater matters. The WOSL appeal sought to strengthen the provisions relating to the management of risk issues associated with the Wiri Oil Terminal. Both of these appeals were settled by negotiation. On 31 July 2013, the Environment Court issued a consent order resolving these appeals. The appeal process did not change the purpose or intent of PPC36. Council can now approve PPC36 to be made fully operative.

Consideration

Local Board Views

8.       This report addresses a procedural matter in making PPC36 operative. The Manurewa Local Board will be notified once PPC36 becomes operative.

Maori Impact Statement

9.       Making PPC36 operative is a procedural matter that does not require iwi consideration. Iwi will be notified of PPC36 becoming operative. 

General

10.     The recommendation to make PPC36 operative is consistent with the council’s policies and strategies and does not trigger the significance policy.

Implementation Issues

11.     Pursuant to Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the RMA, council can now approve PPC36 and once approved, notify the Private Plan Change as operative under Clause 20 of the First Schedule of the RMA.

12.     There will be some administrative costs involved in making the PPC36 operative and consequential updating of the Auckland Council District Plan: Manukau Section. These costs can be accommodated within the Regional and Local Planning Department’s existing budgets.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Location Map

201

bView

Operative Version of PPC36 (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Signatories

Authors

Sukhdeep Singh - Principal Planner

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

 


Auckland Development Committee

13 February 2014

 


Auckland Development Committee

13 February 2014

 

Request to make Plan Change 39, Additions to Group C (Trees) of Schedule 8a (historic Buildings, Structures, Trees and Areas) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) operative

 

File No.: CP2014/00589

 

  

Purpose

1.       This report seeks approval from the Auckland Development Committee to make Plan Change 39, Additions to Group C (Trees) of Schedule 8a (Historic Buildings, Structures, Trees and Areas) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) operative in accordance with Clauses 17 and 20 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Executive Summary

2.       Plan Change 39 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) was initiated by the council in 2011 to add approximately 220 significant individual and groups of trees to Group C (Trees) of Schedule 8a (Historic Buildings, Structures, Trees and Areas) (PC39) as a result of changes to tree protection in the Resource Management Simplifying and Streamlining Act 2009.

3.       PC39 was publicly notified on 12 December 2011. A total of 52 submissions and five further submissions were received. Following a hearing, the council’s decision to approve the Plan Change was released on 12 February 2013. Three appeals were received. These were resolved through mediation and consent orders have now been issued by the Environment Court.

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

 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      approve Plan Change 39 Additions to Group C (Trees) of Schedule 8a (Historic Buildings, Structures, Trees and Areas) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) as amended by Consent Orders issued by the Environment Court (ENV-2013-AKL- 00034, ENV-2013-AKL- 00043, ENV-2013-AKL- 00048) 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 39 Additions to Group C (Trees) of Schedule 8a (Historic Buildings, Structures, Trees and Areas) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) operative pursuant to Clause 20 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

 

 

Discussion

5.       PC39 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) was promulgated by the council in 2011 as a result to the changes to tree protection in the Resource Management Simplifying and Streamlining Act 2009. The intent of PC39 was to ensure that the District Plan continued to protect the most significant trees (both individual specimens and groups) within the former Franklin area of the Region.

6.       PC39 was publicly notified on 12 December 2011. A total of 52 submissions and five further submissions were received.

7.       Following a hearing, the council’s decision to approve the Plan Change was released on 12 February 2013. Three parties appealed the decision: St Stephens and Queen Victoria Trust Board, Counties Racing Club Incorporated and Counties Power Limited.

8.       These appeals have been resolved through mediation and Consent Orders have now been issued from the Environment Court.

9.       The Committee can now approve the plan change to be made operative.

Consideration

Local Board Views

10.     The views of the Franklin Local Board have not been sought for the purposes of this report, which addresses a procedural matter in making PC39 operative. The board will be notified of PC39 becoming operative in the District Plan when this occurs.

Maori Impact Statement

11.    The following iwi were consulted on the Plan Change:  Hauraki Maori Trust Board, Te Runanga o Ngāti Wahtua, Ngāti Whatua o Orakei Maori Trust Board, Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki Tribal Trust, Ngāti Whanaunga Environment Unit, Te Runanga a Iwi o Ngāti Tamatera, Te Ara Rangatu o Te Iwi o Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua, Ngāti Maru, Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority, Te Aakitai Waiohua Iwi Authority and Waikato Tainui Te Kauhanganui Inc.

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

General

13.     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

14.     The recommendation to approve and make PC39 operative is consistent with the council’s policies and strategies and does not trigger the significance policy.

15.     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.

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

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

PC39 Operative Version (Text and Maps)  (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Signatories

Authors

Lisa Miers - Planner

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

 


Auckland Development Committee

13 February 2014

 

Request to make Plan Change 13 (Review of District Plan Rural Provisions) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Papakura Section) operative

 

File No.: CP2014/00658

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       This report seeks approval from the Auckland Development Committee to make Plan Change 13 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Papakura Section) operative in accordance with Clauses 17 and 20 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Executive Summary

2.       Plan Change 13 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Papakura Section) (PC13) provides a complete replacement of the rural section of the plan and consequential amendments across other sections.

3.       Papakura District Council publically notified PC13 on 7 November 2007. Council hearings were held from February to May 2009 and the council notified its decision on PC13 in July 2009. Twelve appeals were received. All appeals have now been resolved.

4.       The Auckland Development Committee can now approve the plan change to be made operative.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      approve Plan Change 13 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Papakura Section): Review of District Plan Rural Provisions as amended by Environment Court Decisions and Consent Orders 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 Plan Change 13 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Papakura Section): Review of District Plan Rural Provisions operative pursuant to Clause 20 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991

 

 

Discussion

5.       PC13 proposed district wide changes to the rural sections of the District Plan. A new rural chapter and consequential amendments to other sections of the plan were notified by the former Papakura District Council on 7 November 2007.

6.       Council hearings were held from February to May 2009 and the council notified its decision on PC13 in July 2009.

7.       Twelve appeals were lodged with the Environment Court by Counties Power Ltd, The New Zealand Defence Force, The New Zealand Transport Authority, Bell Farms Ltd, Mathews, Ballantyne, Federated Farmers, Auckland Regional Council, Johnson Cole, Flanagan, Winstone Agregates and Ardmore Airport Ltd. All appeals have now been resolved. 

8.       The Committee can now approve the plan change to be made operative.

 

Consideration

Local Board Views

9.       The views of the Papakura Local Board and Franklin Local Board have not been sought for the purposes of this report, which addresses a procedural matter in making PC13 operative. The boards will be notified of PC13 becoming operative when this occurs.

Maori Impact Statement

10.    The following iwi were consulted on the Plan Change:  Ngāti Tai, Ngāti Tamaoho, Te Aki Tai, Ngāti Te Ata, and Ngāti Paoa. No appeals to the plan change were made by iwi.

General

11.     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

12.     The recommendation to approve and make PC13 operative is consistent with the council’s policies and strategies and does not trigger the significance policy.

13.     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.

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

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Title Plan Change 13 Operative Version

209

     

Signatories

Authors

Lisa Miers - Planner

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

 


Auckland Development Committee

13 February 2014

 

 

 

 

Auckland Council

District Plan (Papakura Section)

Plan Change No.13:

The Rural Plan Change

 

 

The document will be available online and in the councillors’ lounge on Level 14 of the Auckland Civic Building due to the large size of the attachment.