I hereby give notice that an extraordinary meeting of the Governing Body will be held on:

 

Date:††††††††††††††††††††††

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Wednesday, 24 February 2016

2.00pm

Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

 

Governing Body

 

OPEN ADDENDUM AGENDA

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Mayor

Len Brown, JP

 

Deputy Mayor

Penny Hulse

 

Councillors

Cr Anae Arthur Anae

Cr Dick Quax

 

Cr Cameron Brewer

Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM

 

Cr Dr Cathy Casey

Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE

 

Cr Bill Cashmore

Cr Wayne Walker

 

Cr Ross Clow

Cr John Watson

 

Cr Linda Cooper, JP

Cr Penny Webster

 

Cr Chris Darby

Cr George Wood, CNZM

 

Cr Alf Filipaina

 

 

Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO

 

 

Cr Denise Krum

 

 

Cr Mike Lee

 

 

Cr Calum Penrose

 

 

(Quorum 11 members)

 

 

 

Elaine Stephenson

Democracy Advisor

 

23 February 2016

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8117

Email: elaine.stephenson@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


Governing Body

24 February 2016

 

ITEM†† TABLE OF CONTENTS††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† PAGE

10††††††† City Rail Link and Auckland Transport Alignment Programme Update†††††††††††††††† 5

11††††††† Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - Auckland Council's current position on the zoning maps††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† 73 ††

††


Governing Body

24 February 2016

 

City Rail Link and Auckland Transport Alignment Programme Update

 

File No.: CP2016/02691

 

††

 

 

Purpose

1.†††††† To provide an update on developments relating to the City Rail Link (CRL) and the Auckland Transport Alignment Programme (ATAP), and authorise the negotiation with Government of a joint business plan for the CRL project.

Executive Summary

2.†††††† On 27 January 2016, the Prime Minister confirmed the Governmentís support for, and intent to part fund, the CRL.

3.†††††† The next step is for Council and the Government to negotiate a joint business plan for the project.

4.†††††† On 19 February 2016, the ĎFoundation Reportí for ATAP was released. This report provides the framework for the remainder of the project which will provide advice on intervention packages in April 2016 and a final report including recommendations regarding implementation in July 2016.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

 

a)††††† receive an update on the Government's position on the City Rail Link and related next steps.

b)††††† authorise the Mayor, Cr Bill Cashmore and chief executives of Auckland Council and Auckland Transport to negotiate a joint business plan for the City Rail Link with the Government for adoption by the Governing Body.

c)††††† receive an update on the Auckland Transport Alignment Project.

 

 

Discussion

City Rail Link

5.†††††† In November 2015, I wrote to the Prime Minister requesting that the Government confirm the nature and timing of its funding contribution to the CRL. On 27 January 2016, the Prime Minister confirmed his Government's support for the CRL by announcing that it would fomalise its funding commitment by bringing forward work on the joint business plan for the project to 2016.

6.†††††† This commitment of funding from the Government provides the certainty to Council and Auckland Transport to progress the project, based on the time frame set out in the 2015 Long Term Plan.

7.†††††† As a result of the Government's funding confirmation there are a range of details that now need to be confirmed with the Government regarding the project. The issues to be negotiated are expected to include ownership, governance, project risk and funding details.


 

8.†††††† The Government has proposed that the business plan largely be confined to the matters above, as opposed to it representing a wholesale rework of the analysis and detail of the project that has previously been undertaken. The amount of work that Council has already undertaken on the project and related issues will position us well for these negotiations.

9.†††††† To advance this work there will need to be continued discussions at a governance-level, with the Prime Minister, Minister of Finance and Minister of Transport and at an officers-level led, from Council's perspective, by the chief executives of the Auckland Council and Auckland Transport.

ATAP Foundation Report

10.†††† The Budget Committee, at its 7 May 2015 meeting, resolved the following in relation to engaging with the Government on alternative transport funding (BUD/2015/10):

"that the Mayor and Chief Executive engage with the government to enable the implementation of an alternative funding system by 2018/2019 to fund the implementation of the Auckland Plan Transport Network for the Long-term Plan 2018-2028"

11.†††† On 27 August 2015, the Minister of Transport joined with me to release the terms of reference for the ATAP process.† The focus of the project was to improve the alignment between Council and the Government regarding Auckland's transport programme in order to advance the following broad objectives:

∑†† To support economic growth and increased productivity by ensuring access to employment/labour improves relative to current levels as Auckland's population grows

∑†† To improve congestion results, relative to predicted levels, in particular travel time and reliability in the peak period and to ensure congestion does not become widespread during working hours

∑†† To improve public transport's mode share, relative to predicted results, where it will address congestion

∑†† To ensure any increases in the financial costs of using the transport system deliver net benefits to users of the system

12.†††† Since that time the partners in the project (Ministry of Transport, The Treasury, State Services Commission, NZ Transport Agency, Auckland Council and Auckland Transport) have worked closely and collaboratively to advance the first deliverable of the project, the "ATAP Foundation Report" which was released by the Minister of Transport, Hon Simon Bridges and myself on Friday 19 February.

13.†††† The Foundation Report (a copy of which is appended as Attachment A) provides an overview of the context, problem definition includes the following information:

∑†† A summary of Auckland's current transport situation, including recent trends and how Auckland compares with similar cities internationally

∑†† An outline of future trends that will impact on Auckland's transport system, including growth changing land-use and travel trends

∑†† An evaluation framework to test an intervention's (or combination of interventions) contribution to desired outcomes

∑†† A presentation and description of key issues for future stages of the project to focus on.


 

14.†††† The foundation report provides a framework through which intervention packages can be developed and assessed. This work will result in a further two deliverables for the project, specifically:

∑†† Initial advice reporting on the development, testing and evaluation of broad intervention packages - April 2016.

∑†† A final report detailing the best performing intervention packages the related preferred strategic approach and recommendations regarding implementation - July 2016.

15.†††† By achieving agreement on the optimal transport programme for Auckland, ATAP will provide for Council and Government to discuss and agree a sustainable long-term funding model for transport infrastructure. This in turn will conclude the almost five years of work that Council has undertaken on alternative funding sources for transport infrastructure.

Consideration

Local Board Views

16.†††† Both the CRL and ATAP are regional in their impacts.†

17.†††† The CRL is designed to increase the transport systemís ability to move people to and from the regionís business and entertainment centre.

18.†††† ATAP is designed to review and agree on the significant elements of the entire regionís land transport planning from 2018 onwards.

Māori Impact Statement

19.†††† Impact on Māori is expected to be positive, in that the CRL will enable more people to access the City Centre for employment and social activity, via a more cost effective and environmentally less harmful means of transport than most feasible alternatives.

20.†††† ATAP also is designed to improve both social and environmental outcomes.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

ATAP Foundation Report

9

† ††††

Signatories

Author

His Worship the Mayor


Governing Body

24 February 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Governing Body

24 February 2016

 

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - Auckland Council's current position on the zoning maps

 

File No.: CP2016/02689

 

††

 

 

Purpose

1.†††††† The purpose of this report is to explain:

∑††† the special legislation established for the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP);

∑††† the current and next steps in the hearings process and in particular the decision-making process on the zoning maps (and all other aspects of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan) in July and August 2016;

∑††† the process undertaken to confirm the councilís position and evidence for the re-zoning hearings that commenced on 15 February 2016;

∑††† the approach taken in the councilís evidence relating to the proposed revised zoning maps; and

∑††† the implications of a number of options that could be taken by the council in response to concerns raised about the councilís position and evidence on the zoning maps.

Executive Summary

2.†††††† Approximately 4,000 submissions and 2,500 further submissions were made on the zoning maps in the PAUP. The submissions raised approximately 20,000 separate points. The scale and complexity involved in addressing the submissions is unprecedented in New Zealand.

3.†††††† No decisions have been made by the council on the final form of the zoning maps. Those decisions will be made in August 2016 by the Governing Body, after the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel (the Panel) has listened to and read all of the submissions, and has made its recommendations to the council on 22 July 2016.

4.†††††† The Panel directs the hearings process. For all intents and purposes the council is a submitter at this stage and must provide evidence to the Panel on any position it takes to a hearing.

5.†††††† Currently the Panel is hearing evidence from submitters on the zoning maps and precincts. As part of its evidence, the council has proposed changes to the zoning maps, based on a series of principles endorsed by the Auckland Development Committee in May 2015 and guidance issued by the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel in July 2015.

6.†††††† The proposed revised maps give effect to the Regional Policy Statement chapter of the PAUP and seek to avoid spot-zoning or pepper-potting the maps. There are over 413,000 properties zoned residential in Auckland.† The proposed changes to the maps involve approximately 14 per cent (57,820 properties) of all residential properties in Auckland, with approximately seven per cent clearly within the scope of submissions and seven per cent potentially outside the scope of submissions.† The remaining 86 per cent, or approximately 351,180 properties, have no proposed changes to the notified PAUP zoning maps.

7.†††††† This report responds to concerns that have been raised about the councilís position on the zoning maps, as set out in the comprehensive evidence that was filed with the Panel on 3 December† 2015, and 26 January 2016. It discusses the implications of a number of options, some of which are extremely significant in terms of their impact on the overall hearings process.

8.†††††† Over 990 submitters have indicated to the Panel that they wish to be heard at hearings on the zoning maps. Some of those submitters are requesting significant changes to the maps to enable more housing (up-zoning), while others are requesting down-zoning. If the council withdraws its evidence on the zoning maps, the discussion over up-zoning and down-zoning will still occur at the hearings. The material difference will be that the council will not be able to provide professional advice to moderate the extremes of both sides of the discussion.

9.†††††† Staff therefore recommend that the council should maintain its current position, but clearly stress to the Panel the need to consider issues of natural justice and fairness when reviewing the councilís position and that of other submitters during the course of the hearings in March and April 2016.

 

 

Recommendations

That the Governing Body:

a)††††† note that the council has not made any decisions on the zoning maps in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. This decision will be made in August 2016 after considering the recommendations from the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel.

b)††††† note the proposed changes discussed in the councilís evidence respond to guidance from the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel in relation to avoiding spot-zoning or pepper-potting the zoning maps. Remaining strictly within the scope of submissions on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan would not meet the Panelís guidance.

c)††††† note that the special legislation for the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan passed by the Government allows the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel to recommend changes that are not within the scope of submissions, but balances this by enabling anyone who is prejudiced by the council agreeing to accept the Panelís recommendations to appeal the councilís decision to the Environment Court.†

d)††††† note the concerns expressed by members of the public and community groups about the councilís current position on the zoning maps in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

e)††††† request staff to instruct the councilís lawyers to stress to the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel on 3 March 2016, the importance of considering natural justice and fairness issues when considering the councilís position and that presented by other submitters at the re-zoning hearings.

f)†††††† direct the Auckland Development Committee to hold two workshops specifically on the zoning maps as soon as practicable after recommendations on changes on the zoning maps are received from the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel on 22 July 2016. These workshops are over-and-above the two full day workshops already planned in August, prior to the council making its decisions on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

 


Comments

 

Part A - Recap on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan Hearings Process

 

Special Legislation - Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010

 

10.†††† The Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 (LGATPA) is special legislation enacted by the Government that sets out a process for the development of the first combined planning document for Auckland Council under the Resource Management Act 1991.

11.†††† The LGATPA provides for the following:

∑†††† the preparation of the PAUP;

∑†††† the public notification of the PAUP for submissions;

∑†††† the closing date for original submissions on the PAUP;

∑†††† the requirement for the council to summarise the original submissions received and publicly notify them;

∑†††† the closing date for further submissions;

∑†††† the establishment of the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel, a Chairperson and Panel Members, outside of the council, to hear submissions on the PAUP and make recommendations to the council on the PAUP;

∑†††† the ability of the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel (the Panel) to recommend changes to the PAUP that are not within the scope of submissions;

∑†††† the date the Panel must provide its recommendation report(s) to the council Ė 22 July 2016;

∑†††† the date the council must publicly notify its decisions on recommendations, and also make the Panelís recommendations public Ė 19 August 2016;

∑†††† the Environment Court rights of appeal available to submitters and non-submitters in relation to the councilís decision, which include:

o† Environment Court rights of appeal for submitters where the council rejects a Panel recommendation and decides an alternative solution;

o† Environment Court rights of appeal for any person (whether a submitter or not) where the council accepts a recommendation of the Panel that is identified by the Panel as beyond the scope of submissions on the PAUP, and that person is or will be unduly prejudiced by that decision.

††††††

12.†††† With regard to costs that could be awarded in relation to any Environment Court appeals on the councilís decisions on the PAUP, the Environment Court of New Zealand: Practice Note 2014 states at clause 6.6(b) ďThe following issues are relevant to the practice of the Court in considering costs issues: (b)Where an appeal against a proposed policy statement, plan, or plan change under Schedule 1 to the RMA has proceeded to a hearing, costs will not normally be awarded to any partyĒ.

 

13.†††† In the absence of special legislation, the PAUP would have been developed entirely under the Schedule 1 process in the RMA.† As a result, the PAUP would have been notified for submissions, submissions would have been received and summarised, the summary would have been notified and further submissions called for.† Any submitters who wished to be heard would attend a council hearing, and the council would make a decision on the PAUP.† Submitters who were unhappy with the councilís decision could appeal to the Environment Court and seek the changes to the Plan that they had sought in their submission.

14.†††† While the council is the decision maker for the PAUP, the council does not conduct the hearings Ė that is the role of the Independent Hearings Panel.† The council attends the PAUP hearings before the Independent Hearings Panel, as it is required to under the LGATPA (section 137, LGATPA).

 

Timeline for submissions, hearings and decision-making

 

15.†††† The diagram below sets out the overall timeline for the submissions, hearings and decision-making process for the PAUP, as set out in the LGATPA:

 

 

Role of the Panel

 

16.†††† It is the role of the Panel to:

∑††† hold hearings into submissions on the PAUP;

∑††† regulate its hearings (or alternative resolution approaches) in accordance with the LGATPA;

∑††† adhere to a hearing procedure that is appropriate and fair in the circumstances; and

∑††† provide its recommendation report(s) to the council by 22 July 2016, with the LGATPA explicitly providing that the recommendations can include changes to the PAUP that are out of scope of submissions.

 

17.†††† The panel does not need a submitter to raise out of scope matters Ė it can do so itself.

18.†††† It is not the role of the Panel to make decisions on the PAUP.† The Panel is only required to provide its recommendations to the council on any changes it considers should be made to the PAUP.

 

Role of Auckland Council

19.†††† It is the role of the council to:

∑††† attend all hearing sessions unless excused by the Panel;

∑††† participate in pre hearing meetings, expert conferencing and mediation;

∑††† provide evidence to support the PAUP or any proposed amendments to the PAUP; and

∑††† Consider the recommendations of the Panel and make decisions on those recommendations.

 


Scope and Rights of Appeal

 

20.†††† As outlined above, the Environment Court rights of appeal available to submitters and non-submitters in relation to the councilís decision on the Panelís recommendations on the PAUP include:

∑††† Environment Court rights of appeal to any person (whether a submitter or not) where the council accepts a recommendation of the Panel that is identified by the Panel as beyond the scope of submissions on the PAUP, and that person is or will be unduly prejudiced by that decision.

21.†††† The Panel has issued two directions on scope Ė one on 14 January 2016, on residential re-zonings and issues of scope, and a subsequent direction on 18 February 2016, providing clarification of the earlier directions.† However, the Chairperson highlights the direction that it is important to note that the legal position set out in that decision is altered in relation to the Panelís powers under section 144(5) of the LGATPA which provides that the Panel is not limited to making recommendations only within the scope of submissions on the PAUP.

22.†††† As summarised in the Panelís 14 January 2016 direction, Housing New Zealand Corporation has filed legal submissions with the Panel, which argue that the scope for amending residential zonings in Auckland is not as limited as the council position indicates.

23.†††† While the council has taken a conservative view of scope, and sought to rely on specific submissions for scope, we note that scope is determined as being anywhere between the position in the PAUP as notified and the relief that is sought in any original submissions on the PAUP Ė whether that original submission is specific to a property address or street, or whether that original submission is more broad and general in nature.†

24.†††† It is Housing New Zealand Corporationís position that their original submission on the PAUP and the Governmentís submission provide the scope for the re-zoning that is proposed by the council in evidence, and that the councilís proposed changes to residential zonings are not in fact out-of-scope. This will be a matter for the Panel to determine, as the Panel in making its recommendations is required to clearly identify any recommendations that are out-of-scope of submissions.

 

Part B†††††† Where are we at in the submissions, hearings and decision-making process?

 

Hierarchy within the PAUP and hearings completed to date

 

25.†††† The PAUP is a fully combined planning document† prepared under the Resource Management Act (RMA). It contains the following key components:

∑††† Regional Policy Statement

∑††† Regional Plan (including the Regional Coastal Plan)

∑††† District Plan (including the zoning maps).

 

26.†††† These three components are based on the hierarchy set out in the RMA, with the Regional Policy Statement at the top of the hierarchy. The zoning maps are a tool that is required to give effect to the Regional Policy Statement and the objectives and policies set out in the District Plan for each of the zones.

27.†††† Since September 2014, the Panel has completed the hearings for some sixty PAUP topics. The first tranche of hearings addressed submissions on the Regional Policy Statement. Since then, the Panel has completed hearings in respect of the Regional Coastal Plan (excluding coastal re-zoning and precinct submissions), other regional plan provisions and the District Plan (excluding re-zoning and the majority of the precinct submissions).


Re-zoning and precinct hearings

28.†††† The council received over 4,000 submissions and 2,500 further submissions on the zoning maps in the PAUP, comprising over 20,000 specific submission points affecting over 80,000 properties. In order to manage the re-zoning hearings, the Panel has split the hearings into two separate hearings, Topic 080 (Re-zoning and Precincts Ė General) and Topic 081 (Re-zoning and Precincts Ė Geographical Areas).

29.†††† Hearing Topic 080 addresses re-zoning and precinct submissions relating to Public Open Space zones, Regional Coastal Plan zones and various Special Purpose zones and their related precincts. Topic 080 also addresses general submissions relating to zoning and precincts. The hearing for Topic 080 started on 15 February 2016 and is due to be completed by the end of March 2016. At the beginning of this hearing, the council presented its overall approach to zoning and outlined the principles the council adopted in preparing† zoning maps showing proposed changes for the re-zoning hearings.

30.†††† Hearing Topic 081 addresses re-zoning and precinct submissions relating to the remaining zones, including the business, residential and rural zones. The timeline below sets out the key dates for Topic 081.

 

Topic 081 Timeline

 

31.†††† Over 1,200 pieces of evidence have been lodged with the Panel in relation to Topic 081, with over 990 submitters scheduled to attend the hearings in March and April. A diverse range of individuals and organisations have made submissions on the business, residential and rural zoning maps in the PAUP, including the Government, Housing New Zealand Corporation, developers, resident and business associations, advocacy groups and private individuals. As with all previous hearings, some submitters support the councilís position as set out in its evidence, while others are opposed to the councilís position. The evidence lodged by these submitters has directly responded to the councilís position. Preparing the evidence has required considerable time, cost and effort on the part of many of these submitters.

32.†††† Attachment C sets out the list of resident and advocacy groups with submissions that form part of the Topic 081 hearings.

33.†††† The Panel office has advised that a number of submitters have indicated they will not be lodging evidence in support of their submission because they have read the councilís evidence and support the councilís proposed changes to the zoning maps.

 

†††††††††††


Next steps after April 2016

†††††††††††

34.†††† As outlined above, the council is due to receive the Panelís recommendations on 22 July 2016. At this stage two full day Auckland Development Committee workshops are planned to consider the Panelís recommendations, prior to a full day decision-making meeting of the Auckland Development Committee/Governing Body in August 2016. A series of Unitary Plan Unitary Plan Committee workshops are also proposed between March and June 2016. In light of the importance of the zoning maps, it would be advantageous to schedule an additional two days specifically on any recommended changes to the maps as soon as practicable after the council receives the recommendations from the Panel.

 

Part C - Recap on how the zoning submissions and further submissions were assessed

 

35.†††† The zoning maps in the PAUP are one of the main tools to implement the Regional Policy Statement and the objectives and policies of the zones themselves. A major challenge faced by the council in assessing the approximately 4,000 zoning submissions and 2,500 further submissions was how to avoid a piece-meal approach and ensure an appropriate degree of consistency across Auckland. That is not to say that the PAUP should not recognise the differences between different parts of the region, but rather that areas with similar characteristics should be located in a similar zone.

36.†††† In order to manage the highly complex exercise of assessing the submissions on the zoning maps, a set of guiding principles were developed based on the position the council had taken at the Regional Policy Statement hearings and the various zone hearings during 2014 and 2015. The principles were adopted by the Auckland Development Committee in May 2015 (see Attachment A) and these principles guided the various teams of planners in preparing revised maps for the Unitary Plan Committee to consider in November 2015.

37.†††† The high level principles adopted by the Auckland Development Committee set out below:

∑††† To achieve a quality compact urban form with housing choice within neighbourhoods,† contained within the Rural Urban Boundary and primarily focused within the metropolitan area 2010

∑††† Rezoning proposals should not reduce overall capacity for housing

∑††† Emphasis should be given to residential Ďupzoning rather than Ďdownzoningí to ensure housing supply issues are not exacerbated.

∑††† Upzoning should be in concentrated areas such as around defined centres or nodes

∑††† There should be no large scale rezoning or upzoning in coastal or rural settlements due to the significant investment required to support this

∑††† There should be no rezoning from Future Urban zone to another zone other than to reflect operative Special Housing Areas or to correct an error (e.g. the land already has a Ďliveí zone in the operative plan)

∑††† Avoid Ďreverse sensitivityí at the interface between industrial zones and more intensive residential zones

∑††† Avoid increasing risks in areas affected by coastal hazards (erosion or inundation)

∑††† Protect regionally and nationally significant infrastructure from Ďreverseí effects.

 


 

 

 

38.†††† Guidance from the Panel was also taken into account (see Attachment B), in particular the need for:

∑†††† the overall zoning maps to give effect to the Regional Policy Statement;

∑†††† the zoning maps to give effect to the zone objectives and policies; and

∑†††† ďspot-zoningĒ to be avoided.

39.†††† The diagram below illustrates in simple form how the various principles adopted by the Auckland Development Committee are used to locate the residential zones (decreasing with intensity away from centres and rail stations).

 

 

 

 

 

 

ē†††† Chapter B2.1 of the Regional Policy Statement (RPS) seeks to enable higher residential densities in neighbourhoods within moderate walking distances from the city centre, metropolitan, town and local centres, or the rapid and frequent network facilities

ē†††† Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings (THAB) zone should generally apply within approximately 250m walking distance of metropolitan, town and local centres, the rapid and frequent transport network and arterials

ē†††† Mixed Housing Urban (MHU) zone should generally apply within approximately 250m walking distance of the THAB and Mixed Use zone, the rapid and frequent transport network and arterials. The zone is also applied close to neighbourhood centres.

 

40.†††† As the following diagrams illustrate, councilís approach is to enable intensification much closer to town centres and public transport than some other submitters have proposed. For example, Councilís expert evidence on this point supports a lessor spread of the more intensive residential zones than Housing NZ is proposing.


 

41.†††† The following diagram includes the specific distances set out in the principles for the THAB and MHU zones from Metropolitan, Town, Local and Neighbourhood Centres, and the Frequent Transport Network (FTN) and Rapid Transport Network (RTN).

42.†††† Other submitters, in particular Housing New Zealand, have adopted their own principles (as set out in their evidence for Hearing Topic 080 and Hearing Topic 081). Housing New Zealand Corporationís approach is illustrated below.

 

 

43.†††† Of particular note is the considerably more expansive distance adopted by Housing New Zealand Limited for the THAB and MHU zones relative to Metropolitan and Town Centres (at total of 800 metres as opposed to 500 metres). Housing New Zealand presented their evidence to the Panel in support of this approach on 23 February 2016 and will present their revised zoning maps in March 2016.

44.†††† In addition to developing a series of principles, staff also mapped the approximately 20,000 submission points within approximately 100 geographical submission areas, and began to look for common themes. The maps below show examples of the mapping of submission points. They also show the complexity of the task involved in developing a council response to the submissions, and the difficulty in avoiding spot-zoning or pepper-potting the zoning maps. For example, if five separate property owners on a street requested a sensible change in their submission, but no-one else on the street made a submission, should the zoning only change for those who submitted? Taking this approach would result in spot-zoning, where one property owner has one set of planning rules and their neighbour (whose property has identical characteristics) has a different set of planning rules.

 

 

Area with a small number of submissions

 

 

 

Area with a large number of site-specific submissions

 

 

45.†††† Applying the principles adopted by the Auckland Development Committee and following the guidance issued by the Panel has enabled the council to address the approximately 20,000 zoning submission points while avoiding spot-zoning or pepper-potting the zoning maps. The councilís evidence for the zoning hearings shows the proposed changes that are clearly within the scope of submissions and those that are not specifically requested in the submissions.†† Approximately 14 percent of all residential properties in Auckland are proposed to be rezoned in the councilís evidence, with approximately seven percent of those changes clearly within the scope of submissions and approximately seven percent not specifically requested in the submissions.† Approximately 413,000 properties are proposed to be zoned residential in Auckland under the PAUP.† The councilís evidence recommends retaining the notified PAUP zoning for approximately 86 percent of residential properties in Auckland.†


46.†††† It is important to note that some of the proposed changes that are not within the scope of specific submissions:

∑††††††††† would down-zone properties within the councilís proposed revised pre-1944 overlay;

∑††††††† would re-zone properties from the Single Housing zone to another residential zone due to new information relating to flood plains;

∑††††††† would change the zoning of properties from the Single House zone to the Mixed Housing Suburban zone in places where the Single House zone is more restrictive than the current Operative District Plan.

47.†††† As previously noted, responding to submissions on the PAUP zoning maps is an unprecedented undertaking. The councilís evidence includes 258 separate planning and other technical statements in support of the proposed changes to the zoning maps. The evidence is aligned with the principles set by the council and is based on the professional views of the councilís planning and other technical experts.

Part D - Options at this point in the hearings process

 

48.†††† The following options have been prepared to assist the Governing Body in responding to concerns about the councilís current position as set out in the evidence lodged with the Panel on 3 December 2015 and 26 January 2016.

 

Options

Implications

Option 1

 

Withdraw out of scope changes from the councilís evidence

 

∑††† Addresses the concerns of some members of the public

∑††† Results in a piecemeal approach as the evidence is completely integrated (geographic areas and in and out of scope)

∑††† A re-write of the expert evidence will be required; and there is no time for that to occur before the specific residential zone hearings commence on 3 March 2016.

∑††† Results in a major disconnect between the zoning maps and the councilís evidence

∑††† Disadvantages submitters who have not filed evidence on the basis they were happy with the councilís position

∑††† Disadvantages submitters who have spent money and time putting evidence together after reading the councilís evidence

∑††† No council planning witnesses to support piecemeal zoning as such an approach is contrary to planning best practice

∑††† No council planning witnesses there to provide a view on Housing New Zealand Corporationís request for substantial up-zoning

 

Option 2

 

Withdraw all of the councilís zoning evidence

 

∑††† Generally as above

∑††† Less complex for the Panel and submitters to understand the councilís position.

∑††† Councilís expert evidence that supports or responds to in scope submissions will be lost and councilís experts will not be able to attend the hearings.

Option 3

 

Not withdraw the councilís zoning evidence (in whole or part). Auckland Council legal submission to request that the Panel carefully considers issues of natural justice and fairness when considering any proposed out of scope changes.

∑††† Avoids the adverse implications of Options 1 and 2

∑††† Does not derail the hearings process

∑††† Allows participants to have their say at the hearings without changing the process or their evidence

∑††† The council stays in the hearings to give a balanced view to diametrically† opposing views

Option 4

 

Not withdraw the councilís zoning evidence (in whole or part). Ask for a preliminary hearing on Housing New Zealand Corporationís position in relation to the scope provided within its submission and the Governmentís submission.

∑††† As per Option 3

∑††† Would confirm the Panelís view in relation to the extent of out of scope changes proposed by the council and others

∑††† Legislation allows out of scope changes so the Panel may not want to bind itself until it has heard all the evidence.

Option 5

 

Not withdraw the councilís evidence (in whole or part). Arrange two full day workshops in August solely on the zoning maps with a focus on any out of scope recommendations from the Panel.

As per Option 3

∑††† Allows the council the opportunity to consider in greater detail the Panelís recommendations on the zoning maps prior to making decisions in August 2016

 

 

49.†††† The adverse implications of Options 1 and 2 are significant. A combination of Options 3 and 5 is therefore recommended.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

50.†††† Due to the urgent nature of the Governing Body meeting, it has not been possible to obtain the views of local boards. However, it is understood that a number of local board chairs will be in attendance at the meeting to convey their views to the Governing Body.

 

Māori impact statement

51.†††† The council engaged extensively with Māori during the preparation of the PAUP. Aside from the location and extent of the Māori Purpose zone, the zoning maps were not a major area of focus for Māori. There is however general support from Mana Whenua for the quality compact city approach embodied in the PAUP zoning maps.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Zoning Principles adopted by Auckland Development Committee - May 2015

87

bView

Independent Hearings Panel Guidance - Zoning Precincts and RUB

101

cView

Community and Resident Groups - Topic 081

105

†††††

Signatories

Author

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Authoriser

Stephen Town - Chief Executive


Governing Body

24 February 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Governing Body

24 February 2016

 

PDF Creator


Governing Body

24 February 2016

 

PDF Creator


Governing Body

24 February 2016

 

PDF Creator


Governing Body

24 February 2016

 

PDF Creator


Governing Body

24 February 2016

 

PDF Creator


Governing Body

24 February 2016

 

PDF Creator


Governing Body

24 February 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Governing Body

24 February 2016

 





Governing Body

24 February 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator

††