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

 

Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Wednesday, 6 July 2016

9.30am

Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street, Auckland

 

Auckland Development Committee

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse

 

Deputy Chairperson

Cr Chris Darby

 

Members

Cr Anae Arthur Anae

Cr Calum Penrose

 

Cr Cameron Brewer

Cr Dick Quax

 

Mayor Len Brown, JP

Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM

 

Cr Dr Cathy Casey

Member David Taipari

 

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 Christine Fletcher, QSO

Cr George Wood, CNZM

 

Cr Denise Krum

 

 

Cr Mike Lee

 

 

Member Liane Ngamane

 

 

(Quorum 11 members)

 

 

 

Tam White

Democracy Advisor

 

30 June 2016

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8156

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Exclusion of the public – who needs to leave the meeting

 

Members of the public

 

All members of the public must leave the meeting when the public are excluded unless a resolution is passed permitting a person to remain because their knowledge will assist the meeting.

 

Those who are not members of the public

 

General principles

 

·           Access to confidential information is managed on a “need to know” basis where access to the information is required in order for a person to perform their role.

·           Those who are not members of the meeting (see list below) must leave unless it is necessary for them to remain and hear the debate in order to perform their role.

·           Those who need to be present for one confidential item can remain only for that item and must leave the room for any other confidential items.

·           In any case of doubt, the ruling of the chairperson is final.

 

Members of the meeting

 

·           The members of the meeting remain (all Governing Body members if the meeting is a Governing Body meeting; all members of the committee if the meeting is a committee meeting).

·           However, standing orders require that a councillor who has a pecuniary conflict of interest leave the room.

·           All councillors have the right to attend any meeting of a committee and councillors who are not members of a committee may remain, subject to any limitations in standing orders.

 

Independent Māori Statutory Board

 

·           Members of the Independent Māori Statutory Board who are appointed members of the committee remain.

·           Independent Māori Statutory Board members and staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform their role.

 

Staff

 

·           All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior management) remain.

·           Other staff who need to because of their role may remain.

 

Local Board members

 

·           Local Board members who need to hear the matter being discussed in order to perform their role may remain.  This will usually be if the matter affects, or is relevant to, a particular Local Board area.

 

Council Controlled Organisations

 

·           Representatives of a Council Controlled Organisation can remain only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant to the Council Controlled Organisation.

 

 


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                        PAGE

1          Apologies                                                                                                                        7

2          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   7

3          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               7

4          Petitions                                                                                                                          7  

5          Public Input                                                                                                                    7

6          Local Board Input                                                                                                          7

6.1     Puketapapa Local Board Member M Wood - Liston Village                           8

6.2     Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board Chair, Simon Randall - Tāmaki Regeneration Project                                                                                                                   8

7          Extraordinary Business                                                                                                9

8          Notices of Motion                                                                                                          9

9          Reports Pending Status Update                                                                                11

10        Summary of information memos and briefings - 6 July 2016                                 19

11        Approval of Plan Change 148 (Matakana Country Park) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) 2011                                                                                       21

12        Approval of Proposed (Private) Plan Change 179 (Rezoning 47 and 61 Dawson Road, Snells Beach) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section)               43

13        Northern Corridor Improvement Project - Notice of Requirement /  Resource Consent applications and Environmental Protection Authority process                            75

14        East West Link Project - Notice of Requirement, Resource Consents and Environmental Protection Authority Process                                                                                    85

15        Submission on proposed National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity                                                                                                                                      103

16        Port Future Study                                                                                                      167  

17        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

18        Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public                                                               179

C1       Tāmaki Regeneration Project and Governance Report                                        179  

 


1          Apologies

 

At the close of the agenda no apologies had 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 Monday, 4 July 2016, 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 7.7 provides for Public Input.  Applications to speak must be made to the Democracy Advisor, in writing, no later than one (1) clear working day 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.

 

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

 

6          Local Board Input

 

Standing Order 6.2 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 one (1) day’s 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 6.1 to speak to matters on the agenda.

 

6.1       Puketapapa Local Board Member M Wood - Liston Village

Purpose

1.       To present the Puketapapa Local Board’s planning options for Liston Village for the Auckland Development Committee’s consideration.

Executive summary

2.       Michael Wood will present the Liston Village report and request the Committee to further consider the Local Board’s planning options.

3.       The Puketapapa Local Board presented at the Finance and Performance Committee during the Annual Plan deliberations on 13 May 2016 where it was resolved inter-alia as follows:

FIN2016/68:       That the Finance and Performance Committee:

f)       request a report be brought back to the Finance and Performance Committee exploring the opportunity to:

i)    set-up a Trust structure to secure funding for, and oversee, the restoration of Whare building at Monte Cecilia park

ii)   re-allocate $300,000 to the Whare from the budget for a functions facility at the Pah homestead site.

g)      request that the Puketapapa Local Board’s planning options for Liston Village be presented to the Auckland Development Committee for further consideration.

4.       A copy of the Liston Village reports prepared by Harrison Grierson on behalf of the Puketapapa Local Board are attached as Attachments A and B.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      receive the presentation and thank Michael Wood, Puketapapa Local Board for his attendance.

 

Attachments

a          Liston Village Urban design Asessment and Concept Plans............... 183

b          Liston Village - Landscape and Visual Asessment .............................. 205

 

 

6.2       Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board Chair, Simon Randall - Tāmaki Regeneration Project

Purpose

1.       To address the committee in relation to the Tāmaki Regeneration Project. 

2.       Simon Randall, Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board Chair will address the committee and will speak at the item in the confidential part of the agenda.

 

 

 


 

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

06 July 2016

 

Reports Pending Status Update

 

File No.: CP2016/12793

 

Purpose

1.       To update the committee on the status of Auckland Development Committee resolutions from February 2015, requiring follow-up reports.

Executive Summary

2.       This report is a regular information-only report that provides committee members with greater visibility of committee resolutions requiring follow-up reports (Attachment A). It updates the committee on the status of such resolutions. It covers committee resolutions from February 2015 and will be updated for every regular meeting.

3.       This report covers open resolutions only. The committee’s Forward Work Programme 2015/2016, is also attached for information (Attachment B).

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      receive the reports pending status update.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Reports pending list

13

bView

Forward Work Programme 2015/2016

15

      

Signatories

Author

Tam White - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

 


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator



Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

Summary of information memos and briefings - 6 July 2016

 

File No.: CP2016/12812

 

Purpose

1.       To receive a summary and provide a public record of memos or briefing papers that may have been distributed to committee members since 15 October 2015.

Executive Summary

2.       This is a regular information-only report which aims to provide greater visibility of information circulated to committee members via memo or other means, where no decisions are required.

3.       The following presentations/memos/reports were presented/circulated:

·        15 June 2016:

a.   National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity - presentation

b.   City Centre projects update – report and presentation

c.   Tamaki Regeneration project update – presentation

d.   East West Link project – presentation

4.       These and previous documents can be be found on the Auckland Council website, at the following link:

http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/

o at the top of the page, select meeting “Auckland Development Committee” from the drop-down tab and click ‘View’;

o Under ‘Attachments’, select either HTML or PDF version of the document entitled ‘Extra Attachments’

5.       Note that, unlike an agenda report, staff will not be present to answer questions about these items referred to in this summary. Committee members should direct any questions to the authors.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      receive the summary of information memos and briefings – 6 July 2016.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity presentation (Under Separate Cover)

 

b

City Centre projects update – report and presentation  (Under Separate Cover)

 

c

Tamaki Regeneration project - presentation (Under Separate Cover)

 

d

East West Link project - presentation  (Under Separate Cover)

 

Signatories

Author

Tam White - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

 


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

Approval of Plan Change 148 (Matakana Country Park) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) 2011

 

File No.: CP2016/10506

 

Purpose

1.       To approve the Plan Change 148 (Matakana Country Park) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) 2011 (District Plan) to enable it to be made operative.

Executive summary

2.       Plan Change 148 provides for specific District Plan provisions to enable the continued use and development of the Matakana Country Park complex at Matakana. In essence, the plan change provides for the existing activities (such as the farmers market, museum, and church) and for future development of the site (such as new visitor accommodation).

3.       Plan Change 148 has progressed through public notification, submission and hearings stages with a decision being notified in June 2013. The decision was appealed to the Environment Court, with decisions by the Environment Court being issued on 14 July 2015, 9 December 2015 and the final signoff of the provisions by the court occurred on 25 May 2016.

4.       Final approval of Plan Change 148 is now required by the council under Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) to enable the plan change to become operative in the District Plan. 

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      approve Plan Change 148 (Matakana Country Park) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) 2011, as set out in Attachment B to this report, pursuant to Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.

b)      authorise the Manager Planning North/West to complete the statutory processes under Clause 20 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 to make Plan Change 148 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) 2011 operative in the District Plan.

 

Comments

5.       The Matakana Country Park owner approached the former Rodney District Council seeking that the site at 15 Takatu Road, Omaha Flats (see Attachment A) be given additional special considerations in the Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) 2011 from what is currently provided for by the zoning.  The District Plan currently zones the land as General Rural and this zone does not readily provide for all the activities sought to occur at the Matakana Country Park.

6.       The provision of specific District Plan provisions for Matakana Country Park was recognised in the Matakana Sustainable Development Plan (2006) and a subsequent plan change was initiated by the Council to give effect to this part of the Sustainable Development Plan.

7.       The plan change adds provisions to the District Plan to create scheduled/restricted activities on the site to provide for:

i.        A concept development plan showing where different activities are to be located;

ii.       Various activities being undertaken at the Matakana Country Park (e.g. farmers market, shops, museum, restaurant and café, church, playground, miniature train track, petting zoo) as permitted activities;

iii.      Buildings up to 9m as controlled activities;

iv.      A visitors accommodation area for up to 60 people and an Adventure (budget) accommodation area for up to 40 people as restricted discretionary activities;

v.       Limited subdivision for up to 10 lots as a restricted discretionary activity;

vi.      Unit title subdivision of the visitor accommodation area as a non-complying activity. 

8.       A hearing was held in December 2012 and the independent commissioner panel released decisions on submissions in May 2013. The decision was appealed to the Environment Court by the applicant following the release of the Hearing Panels decision.

9.       Final signoff of the plan change provisions by the Environment Court was issued on 25 May 2016 (see Attachment B). Previous decisions have been issued by the Environment Court on 14 July 2015 and 9 December 2015.

10.     All that remains is for the Auckland Council to approve Plan Change 148 (Matakana Country Park) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) 2011 pursuant to Clause 17 of the First Schedule of RMA, and authorise the Manager Planning North/West to complete the statutory processes under Clause 20 of the First Schedule to achieve operative status in the District Plan.

11.     The decisions requested on Plan Change 148 (Matakana Country Park) to the District Plan fall within the Auckland Development Committee’s delegated authority. 

12.     It is noted that the final provisions of Plan Change 148 are carried forward into the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan as a precinct (through council evidence).

Consideration

Local board views and implications

13.     The decisions requested on Plan Change 148 (Matakana Country Park) to the District Plan are not a matter for the delegated authority of the Rodney Local Board. Consequently the views of the Local Board have not been sought.

14.     The Local Board has been kept informed about the plan change process.

Māori impact statement

15.     The Matakana Sustainable Development Plan process involved extensive public consultation and iwi groups were specifically involved in that process. Iwi groups involved were Ngati Manuhiri (Moko Trust) and Ngati Whatua Nga Rima.

16.     The Plan Change was developed and initiated by resolution of the Former Rodney District Council and appropriate consultation with Iwi was undertaken at that time. Subsequently under Auckland Council Iwi were notified during the notification process and no issues were raised relating to Iwi.

Implementation

17.     There will be some administrative costs associated with making Plan Change 148 (Matakana Country Park) operative and consequential updating of the District Plan.  These costs are provided for in the Plans and Places departmental budget.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Location plan

25

bView

Environment Court Decision - Plan Change 148

27

     

Signatories

Author

Ryan  Bradley - Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

 


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

Location Plan showing the site subject to Plan Change 148


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 
















Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

Approval of Proposed (Private) Plan Change 179 (Rezoning 47 and 61 Dawson Road, Snells Beach) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section)

 

File No.: CP2016/12420

 

Purpose

1.       To approve the Proposed Plan Change 179 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) to enable it to be made operative.

Executive summary

2.       Private Plan Change 179 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) was prepared to provide for the rezoning of land comprising 7.86ha at 47-61 Dawson Road, Snells Beach from low intensity residential zone to medium intensity residential zone.

3.       Plan Change 179 proposed a set of rules and a concept plan with a subdivisional layout showing a road network, wastewater and storm water infrastructure, open space provision, landscaping and the application of urban design principles that would allow it to be developed at a medium residential density.

4.       Plan Change 179 was notified on 25 April 2013 and has progressed through the submission and hearing stages with a decision being released in April 2016. No appeals were received.

5.       Final approval of Plan Change 179 by the Council is now required under Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 to enable the Plan Change to become operative in the District Plan.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      approve Plan Change 179 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) as set out in (Attachment A) to this report pursuant to Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991;

b)      authorise the Manager Planning North West to complete the statutory processes required under Clause 20 of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991, to make the Proposed Plan Change 179 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) operative, in the District Plan.

Comments

6.       Plan Change 179 is a private plan change to the Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section), seeking to rezone a 7.86ha area of land at 47-61 Dawson Road, Snells Beach from the low intensity residential zone to the medium intensity residential zone, (refer to plan in Attachment B).

7.       Plan Change 179 was notified on 25 April 2013.

8.       A hearing was held on the 11 December 2014. The hearing identified that disposal of stormwater to a wetland on neighbouring land was crucial to the development set out in the concept plan. The Hearings Panel adjourned the hearing to await confirmation that the adjoining landowner would agree in writing to allow this wetland area and storm water from this development to be managed on their land. This written agreement was received on 15 March 2016 after a number of delays and extensions to the hearing period. Watercare also submitted that the land could not be serviced for wastewater in the medium term. This led the applicant to propose a two stage approach for development of the land. The initial first stage development involving eighteen lots was worked through with Watercare and agreement reached for an interim wastewater package plant to treat and discharge to the undeveloped portions of the land. This entire infrastructure is to be decommissioned once the public reticulated system is upgraded in 7 to 10 years’ time.

Urban Design, open space and landscaping

9.       The detailed nature of the private plan change necessitated a consideration of the appropriate provision made in the concept plan. Some refinement of the road network, pedestrian connections, street landscaping, the provision of a small open space area in association with storm water disposal, and road connections with adjacent land have arisen out of the consideration of the plan change and the submissions received.

10.     Following the Hearings Panel’s consideration of the storm water, wastewater and other site layout issues, Plan Change 179 was modified to address these matters .The Hearings Panel decision was publicly notified on 27 April 2016.

11.     No appeals were lodged to the Council’s decision on Plan Change 179.

12.     The landowner lodged a submission to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan seeking a similar rezoning in that document.  The Council’s closing statement on rezoning and precincts recognised the decision made on Plan Change 179, as did the submitter’s presentation to the Independent Hearings Panel.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

13.     The decisions requested in terms of Plan Change 179 are not a matter for the delegated authority of the Rodney Local Board. Consequently the views of the Local Board have not been sought. The Rodney Local Board will be notified of Plan Change 179 becoming operative and have been kept updated on the progress of reaching a decision on this matter.

Māori impact statement

14.     Ngati Manuhiri raised concerns related to the capacity to dispose of wastewater arising from the more intensive development of this land  and consequent issues relating to water quality in the Upper Mahurangi Harbour. The Hearing Panel’s decision to impose a two stage approach to the implementation of development on the subject land addresses these iwi concerns.

Implementation

15.     The recommendation to make Plan Change 179 operative is consistent with Council’s policies and strategies and does not trigger the significance policy.

16.     Pursuant to Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991, Council can now approve Plan Change 179 and once approved, publicly notify the Plan Change as operative under Clause 20 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.  The Plan Change provisions as amended by the Council Decision are set out in Attachment A.

17.     There will be some administrative costs involved in making Plan Change 179 operative and consequential updating of the Auckland District Plan (Rodney section). These costs can be recouped from the applicant due to this being a private plan change.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Plan Change 179 rule provisions including concept plan

47

bView

Location of Area Subject to Plan Change

73

     

Signatories

Author

David Hookway - Principal Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

 


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 



















Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 



Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 






Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

Northern Corridor Improvement Project - Notice of Requirement /  Resource Consent applications and Environmental Protection Authority process

 

File No.: CP2016/12301

 

Purpose

1.       To outline the additional route protection (designation) and resource consent applications process for the Northern Corridor Improvements project as the final component of the Western Ring Route Road of National Significance and to recommend a response to a request from the Environment Protection Authority for the council’s views.

Executive summary

2.       The Northern Corridor Improvements (NCI) project is the final piece of the Western Ring Route, which is one of the Government’s seven roads of National Significance. The NCI will provide a direct motorway to motorway connection between the Northern Motorway (SH1) and an upgraded Upper Harbour Highway (SH 18), an extended Northern Busway from the Constellation Bus Station to Albany Bus Station, upgraded local road connections and new walking and cycling routes.

3.       The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) is preparing and consulting on a widened corridor in which to accommodate the required works for the NCI. The NZTA wishes to protect and construct this widened corridor using both the designation and resource consent process in the Resource Management Act 1991. NZTA plans to have these matters processed by the Environmental Protection Authority (Authority) as a proposal of national significance. This would result in a significantly faster processing time.

4.       The Authority has written to the council on behalf of the Minister for the Environment (see Attachment A), formally seeking the council’s views on processing options for the NCI project to determine:

i.        whether the proposal is (or is part of) a proposal of national significance;

ii.       whether it should be referred to a Board of Inquiry, the Environment Court, or the Auckland Council;

iii.      the Auckland Council’s capacity to process the matter; and

iv.      any suggestion for potential Board of Inquiry members.

For clarity, the request is for council’s views on the process for considering the Northern Corridor project, not the merits or details of the project.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      agree that the council’s response to the Environmental Protection Authority in relation to the Notices of Requirement and applications for resource consent for the Northern Corridor Improvements Project:

i)        confirms that the Northern Corridor Improvements project is part of a proposal of national significance;

ii)       recommends that the proposal should be referred to a Board of Inquiry;

iii)      confirms the Auckland Council’s capacity to process the matter if required.

b)      agree to delegate to the committee Chair, Deputy Chair and a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board, working with the Manager North West Planning and Team Manager Major Infrastructure Projects, the task of preparing a list of potential Board of Inquiry members with expertise in engineering, planning, urban design, landscape architecture and tikanga Māori, should the Minister refer the Northern Corridor Improvements Project to a Board of Inquiry.

 

Comments

5.       The Northern Corridor Improvements (NCI) project is the final piece of the Western Ring Route, which is one of the Government’s seven roads of National Significance. The Western Ring Route is a 48 kilometre alternative to State Highway 1 between the North Shore and Manukau via West Auckland.

6.       The Western Ring Route comprises a number of significant transport infrastructure improvement projects, the main one being the 2.4 km Waterview Tunnel, which will open in early 2017. A key objective of the upgraded Western Ring Route is to improve the road network resilience by reducing dependence on State Highway 1. It is the biggest project ever undertaken by the NZTA and will be fully complete by 2021.

7.       The NCI project will play its part in the strategic role of the Western Ring Route by providing a more resilient network connecting the Auckland and Northland regions, supporting future regional and local economic growth, improving the safety of the network, and making journey times more reliable. An aerial plan and a graphic of the project layout are shown in Attachment B. The NCI project includes the following key features:

i.    A new direct motorway to motorway connection between SH 18 and SH1, separating motorway traffic from local road traffic;

ii.    Additional lanes in both directions on the Northern Motorway (SH1) between Greville Road and Constellation Drive;

iii.   Extension of the Northern Busway from Constellation Bus Station to Albany Bus Station;

iv.  A 5 km shared walking and cycling path adjoining the new busway extension and the Upper Harbour Highway to the Albany Highway and a new walking and cycling bridge over the Northern Motorway connecting Pinehill and the Albany Centre;

v.   Local road improvements through the Constellation Drive and Carribean Drive intersections, and a new Paul Matthews Road bridge.

Approval Process

8.       NZTA wishes to protect and construct the widened corridor for the Northern Corridor Improvements through both the designation and resource consent processes in the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). To do this, NZTA plans to lodge a Notice of Requirement (NoR) and appropriate resource consent applications that identify the corridor in detail and will include an Assessment of Effects on the Environment.

9.       NZTA plans to use Part 6AA ‘Proposals of national significance’ of the RMA to have these matters processed by the Authority rather than the Council. This would result in a significantly faster processing time for the NoR and associated resource consent applications as it effectively combines the Council and Environment Court hearing processes.

10.     The alternative process would be for the Council to notify and process the NoR and resource consent applications and provide a recommendation (NoR) and decision (resource consent) to NZTA. Following NZTA’s decision, any submitter or the Council could appeal the decision on the notice of requirement to the Environment Court.  Equally, any submitter could appeal any decision on a resource consent application to the same Court.

11.     The process that NZTA is seeking to use involves lodging the NoR and resource consent applications with the Authority which would then notify and process them using a Board of Inquiry or directly refer the matter to the Environment Court. The Authority is required by law to release any decisions or recommendations no more than nine months following the date of notification. These decisions could only be appealed to the High Court on points of law.

12.     The council’s role in this process would be as a potential submitter on the RMA applications (rather than the processor of it). The council would also be required to prepare a report on the key issues in relation to the proposal under section 149G(3) of the RMA.

13.     NZTA is aiming to lodge the NoR documents and resource consent applications with the Authority in late October 2016.

Is the Northern Corridor Improvements project a proposal of national significance?

14.     The Northern Corridor Improvements project is part of the Western Ring Route Road of National Significance.  An assessment of the project is required to determine whether it is of national significance.  Section 142(3) of the RMA is a useful guide as this section sets out criteria for the Minister to consider in deciding on whether the matter is of national significance. The criteria are listed below with an assessment of the Northern Corridor Improvement project against each one.

Whether the matter has aroused widespread public concern or interest regarding its actual of likely effect on the environment (including the global environment).   

15.     The NZTA has engaged, and is continuing to engage with key stakeholders, iwi and the wider community on the NCI. There has been a high level of public interest in the NCI to date.  More than 1200 members of the public provided feedback during the consultation period in 2015. An open day was held on 19 June 2016 and feedback invited to be submitted by 8 July 2016. It is anticipated that as the project develops and progresses through the statutory process, there is likely to be continued widespread interest regarding the actual or likely effect of the project on the environment. The matters of particular interest to local communities and the wider public to date are:

i.        The establishment and impact of motorway to motorway ramps at the Constellation Drive connection to SH1 and SH18;

ii.       The potential property impacts resulting from  the required widening of SH1 and SH18 to accommodate additional motorway lanes and motorway ramps;

iii.      The walking and cycling shared links;

iv.      The extension of the busway between Constellation Drive and Albany.

Whether the matter involves or is likely to involve significant use of natural and physical resources.

16.     The NCI will impact on SH 1 and SH 18 which are significant physical resources. The NCI involves earthworks and storm water control for construction activities which will require obtaining a number of regional resource consents. Accordingly, the project will involve significant use of natural and physical resources.

Whether the matter affects or is likely to affect a structure, feature, place or area of national significance.

17.     Construction of the NCI will be in an existing highly modified environment.  There are issues of regional significance in terms of encroachment into current recreational land, in particular the existing hockey playing grounds, and the Rosedale Wastewater facility.  Options for mitigating those impacts are being worked through between the relevant stakeholders. However, apart from the existing motorway itself, the project does not affect structures or features of national significance.

Whether the matter affects or is likely to affect or is relevant to New Zealand’s international obligations to the global environment.

18.     The NCI project is not likely to directly affect New Zealand’s international obligations to the global environment.  In a wider sense there may be considered to be issues with the project facilitating more car-based transport within Auckland and Northland and the implications of this on New Zealand's obligations under the Framework Convention on Climate Change.  However alterative transport modes also feature strongly in the proposal with the extended busway and shared walking and cycling facilities.

 

 

Whether the matter results or is likely to result in or contribute to significant or irreversible changes to the environment (including the global environment).

19.     As noted above, the project will involve significant construction works within an existing modified environment. The works will entail significant earthworks, retaining walls and fly-over structures, which will have visual and noise effects. These effects will be mitigated by screening and landscaping. They will also be adding to an environment already highly modified by the existing motorway structures and effects. Nevertheless, the visual changes as a result of the new structures, in particular, will be significant.

Whether the matter involves or is likely to involve technology, processes, or methods that are new to New Zealand and that may affect its environment.

20.     The construction of the NCI project will involve best practice technology, processes and methods.  These will not contribute to any significant adverse effects on the environment, and in fact would more likely be used to minimise the effects on the environment from the construction and operation of the improvements.

Whether the matter is or is likely to be significant in terms of Section 8.

21.     Section 8 of the RMA refers to taking into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.  Engagement with relevant mana whenua groups has identified matters of significance as discussed in the Maori Impact Statement in this report. 

Whether the matter will assist the Crown in fulfilling its public health, welfare, security, or safety obligations or functions.

22.     The state highway network is nationally a significant infrastructure asset, valued at around $21 billion, which plays a critical role in facilitating economic development, connecting communities and contributing to the health and wellbeing of New Zealanders.

23.     The NCI project will assist the Crown to fulfil its welfare and safety obligations by establishing new infrastructure and improving existing transport infrastructure to support economic development and maintain safety for all transport users.

Whether the matter affects or is likely to affect more than one region or district.

24.     The NCI project is located in the Upper Harbour Local Board area and is entirely within the Auckland Council’s jurisdiction. However, the project will form part of the state highway network that extends across districts and regions. The proposed improvements to SH 1 and SH 18 will help to facilitate inter-regional travel between Auckland and Northland and allow the full benefits of the Western Ring Route to be realised.

25.     The proposed improvements to connect SH1 and SH18 will generate benefits within the Auckland region and beyond, particularly the Northland region (incorporating Kaipara District, Whangarei District and the Far North District).  The proposal is envisaged to improve the economic development opportunities for Northland through better access and travel times between the main production activities in Northland, the major transport hubs, particularly Auckland International Airport, and the Auckland market.  Improved travel time reliability for business and personal trips to and from Auckland will make tourist destinations in Northland more accessible to the large domestic and international visitor market in Auckland.

Whether the matter relates to a network utility operation that extends or is proposed to extend to more than one district or region.

26.     As noted above, the project will form part of the state highway network that extends across districts and regions.

27.     Overall, based on the evidence above it is considered that the Northern Corridor Improvements project is of national significance.  This is reinforced through the classification of the Western Ring Route, of which the project is a component, as a Road of National Significance by the Government.

Should the Northern Corridor Improvement project be referred to a Board of Inquiry, the Environment Court or the Auckland Council?

28.     There are three different options for processing the proposal.  The options are a Council Hearing, Environment Court Hearing or a Board of Inquiry. Each option has different advantages and disadvantages.  The council’s hearing process would potentially be a more comfortable environment for submitters than a formal Environment Court hearing / cross-examination process. A Board of Inquiry would likely sit somewhere in between these two processes in terms of formality and ease of access for the public.

29.     The timeframe for the council process would be longer as any decision could be appealed to the Environment Court.  The Board of Inquiry and Environment Court processes would only have appeal rights to the High Court on points of law.

30.     Overall, it is considered that the Board of Inquiry is the most suitable option for processing this proposal as it strikes a balance between the most efficient method to process the proposal (of national significance) while still enabling the general public to feel comfortable participating in the process.

Does Auckland Council have capacity to process the matter?

31.     Auckland Council is the largest local authority in New Zealand.  Processing complex projects involving notices of requirement and multiple resource consent applications is within the capacity of the council.

Suggestions for potential Board of Inquiry members

32.     Any list of potential Board of Inquiry members should include candidates that have significant experience and expertise in one or more of the following areas: 

·   Resource management planning;

·   Engineering;

·   Urban design / landscape architecture

·   Tikanga Maori

33.     It is recommended that the Chair and Deputy Chair of this committee and a representative from the Independent Maori Statutory Board be delegated to compile a list of names as potential Board of Inquiry members and forward this list onto the Environment Protection Authority as part of the response letter. The Manager North West Planning and the Team Manager, Major Infrastructure Projects would be able to support them in this task.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

34.     The Northern Corridor Improvements project is located wholly within the Upper Harbour Local Board area and adjoins the Hibiscus Bays Local Board area to the east. 

35.     The Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2014 includes the following as one of its outcomes:

“A well-connected and accessible Upper Harbour; we have a well-designed road network with connected bus services, walkways and cycleways across the North Shore. We are well connected to Westgate in the West and our central city, giving us choices as to where we work, study and play”

36.     The New Zealand Transport Agency presented an overview and updates on the project to both boards through 2014 and 2015.  In addition both boards are represented on the Project Reference Group.

37.     Both the Upper Harbour and Hibiscus Coast Bays Boards acknowledge the project’s benefits for relieving existing congestion and providing for growth in the area.  They also strongly support the busway extension and walking and cycling improvements

38.     The Boards’ main concerns have been the impact on the hockey complex and public open space at the intersection of State Highways 1 and 18, and the impact on local businesses. Also in response to the Upper Harbour Local Board’s concerns about access into the Unsworth Heights community, NZTA is currently investigating bridging or underpass options.

Māori impact statement

39.     Initial iwi engagement on the NCI was through two presentations in 2014 made to Hokai Nuku, a representative group of five iwi comprising Ngāti Manuhiri, Te Uri o Hau, Ngāti Rongo o Kaipara, Ngāti Whātua and Ngāti Paoa.

40.     In August 2015 the NZTA established the Northern-Central Iwi Integration Group.  This group is now the primary mechanism for engagement on current NZTA projects, including the NCI.  Monthly hui are held where project issues are discussed.  Attendances at the hui have included the following:

·   Ngāti Te Ata

·   Ngāti Tamaoho

·   Ngāti Te Akitai

·   Ngāti Paoa

·   Te Kawerau a Maki

·   Ngāi Tai

·   Ngāti Whātua

·   Ngāti Ngati Maru

41.     In addition to the Iwi Integration Group meetings, separate hui are periodically held for the NCI.  The next hui is scheduled for 7 July 2016.

42.     Issues identified to date concern protection of waterways and vegetated areas. Oteha Valley and Lucas Creek, are located north of the project footprint, and are identified as culturally significant areas. Details on matters such as earthworks, storm water treatment, ecological enhancement and opportunities to have input into the design of structures, have also been raised.  These issues will be discussed further through the hui process as the project progresses.  Cultural values assessments have been prepared by three iwi to date.

Implementation

43.     Council staff will respond by letter to the Environment Protection Authority with the recommendations of this Committee.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Letter from EPA dated 8 June 2016

81

bView

Project Layout, Plan and Graphic

83

     

Signatories

Author

Warren Maclennan - Manager Planning - North/West

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

 


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

East West Link Project - Notice of Requirement, Resource Consents and Environmental Protection Authority Process

 

File No.: CP2016/13282

 

Purpose

1.       To outline the route protection (designation) and resource consent process for the New Zealand Transport Agency’s East West Link project and to recommend a response to a request from the Environmental Protection Authority for the council’s views on the way it should be processed.

Executive summary

2.       New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) is preparing notices of requirement and resource consent applications (applications) under the Resource Management Act 1991 to protect and construct a major road that would connect to State Highway 1 at Mt Wellington, and State Highway 20 at Onehunga.  The road is named the East West Link as it runs east to west between the two state highways.

3.       NZTA intends to lodge its applications in December 2016 with the Environmental Protection Authority (Authority), and will request its applications are referred to a Board of Inquiry, on the basis that the East West Link is a matter of national significance.  This would result in a significantly faster processing time.

4.       The Authority has written to the council on behalf of the Ministers for the Environment, and of Conservation (see Attachment B), formally seeking the council’s views on:

i.        whether the proposal is (or is part of) a proposal of national significance

ii.       whether the proposal should be referred to a Board of Inquiry, the Environment Court, or the council

iii.      Auckland Council’s capacity to process the application

iv.      any nominations for Board of Inquiry members, in the event a Board of Inquiry is established.

For clarity, the request is for council’s views on the process for considering the East West Link project, not the merits or details of the project

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      agree that the council’s response to the Environmental Protection Authority in relation to the notices of requirement and applications for resource consent for the East West Link project:

i)        confirms that the East West Link project is a proposal of national significance

ii)       recommends that the East West Link should be referred to a Board of Inquiry

iii)      confirms that Auckland Council has the capacity to process the matter if required.

b)      delegate to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the committee and a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board, working with General Manager Plans and Places and Team Manager Major Infrastructure Assessments, the task of preparing a list of potential Board of Inquiry members with expertise in the areas of ecology/coastal processes, engineering, landscape architecture/urban design, resource management planning, transport planning and tikanga Māori, should the Ministers refer the East West Link project to a Board of Inquiry.

 

Comments

5.       The East-West Link will link State Highway 1 (SH1) at Mt Wellington, and State Highway 20 (SH20) at Onehunga. It is intended to be a road, not a motorway.  Refer to the map at Attachment A.

6.       In recognising the East-West Link as a key transport project, the Auckland Plan describes the project as: a strategic transport corridor that will connect the Western Ring Route (SH 20) at Onehunga and the Southern Motorway (SH1), providing improved access to the rail freight hub at Metroport and major employment areas, such as East Tāmaki. This link will address the high traffic and freight movements on congested local roads, provide efficient freight movements between SH20 and SH1, and between industrial areas and the port and airport. This link will also enable east-west improvements for public transport, walking and cycling (Auckland Plan directive 13.5).

Designation and resource consent process

7.       The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) wishes to protect and construct the corridor for the East West Link through both the designation and resource consent processes under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). To do this, NZTA plans to lodge notices of requirement (NOR) and a number of applications for resource consent that identify the corridor in detail and will include an Assessment of Effects on the Environment.

8.       NZTA plan to use Part 6AA ‘Proposals of national significance’ of the RMA to have these matters processed by the Authority rather than the council. This would result in a significantly faster processing time for the NOR and associated resource consent applications as it effectively combines the council and Environment Court hearing processes.

9.       The alternative process would be for the council to notify and process the NOR and resource consent applications and provide a recommendation (NOR) and decision (resource consents) to NZTA. Following NZTA’s decision, any submitter or the council could appeal the decision on the notice of requirement to the Environment Court.  Equally, any submitter could appeal any decision on a resource consent application to the same court.

10.     The process that NZTA is seeking to use involves lodging the NOR and resource consent applications with the Environmental Protection Authority (Authority), which would then notify and process these matters using a Board of Inquiry, or directly refer the matter to the Environment Court. The Authority is required by law to release any decisions or recommendations no more than nine months following the date of notification. The decisions could only be appealed to the High Court on points of law.

Environmental Protection Authority request to council

11.     The Environmental Protection Authority wrote to Auckland Council on 8 June 2016 regarding the East West Link.  A copy of the letter is included as Attachment B.  The letter explains the Authority’s requirement to make recommendations to the Ministers for the Environment, and of Conservation, and the Ministers’ requirement to have regard to the council’s views.  The Minister of Conservation is involved as the project involves work in the Coastal Marine Area, including reclamation.  Accordingly, the Authority seeks the council’s views regarding the East West Link on:

i.    whether the proposal is (or is part of) a proposal of national significance

ii.    whether the proposal should be referred to a Board of Inquiry, the Environment Court, or the council

iii.   Auckland Council’s capacity to process the application

iv.  any nominations for Board of Inquiry members, in the event a Board of Inquiry is established.

 

Is the East West Link a proposal of national significance?

12.     An assessment of the project is required to determine whether it is of national significance.  Section 142(3) of the RMA is a useful guide as this section sets out criteria for the Minister to consider in deciding on whether the matter is of national significance. The criteria are listed below with an assessment of the East West Link project against each one. Overall, having regard to the criteria the proposal is considered to be of national significance.

Whether the matter has aroused widespread public concern or interest regarding its actual or likely effect on the environment (including the global environment)?

13.     The East West Link project has attracted significant interest regarding its likely effects on the environment. NZTA’s public consultation phases to date (most recently in July 2015) garnered interest in the project and its likely effects. Some issues of particular concern for the public included a previous proposal to align the road on the southern side of the Manukau Inlet, access to Onehunga Wharf, opportunities for achieving future rail connections to the airport, potential risks for native birds, air quality and noise, views, construction traffic, flooding, and the impacts on local business from proposed structures. There was support for improving walking and cycle connections between Onehunga, Mangere Bridge and Sylvia Park Road, Penrose.

Does the East West Link involve or is likely to involve significant use of natural and physical resources?

14.     The construction of the East West Link is likely to involve significant use of natural resources. For example, the project involves reclamation along the northern edge of the Mangere Inlet and the construction of several new ramp structures in the Neilson Street and Ann’s Creek, and Hamlins Hill areas. The project is also likely to involve significant earthworks due to its length (5.5km from Onehunga Port to SH1, Penrose).

15.     In addition to ramp structures connecting East West Link to State Highway 1, further upgrades are proposed to State Highway 1 itself. State Highway 1 is a significant physical resource as New Zealand’s most significant road transport link, with corresponding economic enabling characteristics.

Whether the matter affects or is likely to affect a structure, feature, place, or area of national significance?

16.     The East West Link project may affect structures, features, places or areas of national significance. The proposed road alignment passes through a Coastal Marine Area and affects Outstanding Natural Features (e.g. Southdown pahoehoe lava flows including Ann’s Creek and Hamlin’s Hill) along the route. In terms of ecology, there is a network of protected marine areas along the proposed foreshore alignment. The majority of these are Auckland Council Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan Significant Ecological Areas - Marine (Significant wading bird area and generally protected marine area).

17.     The Mangere inlet area contains a number of unique ecosystems, epitomised by the saltmarsh ecosystem of Ann’s Creek. The Mangere Inlet is a foraging and roosting habitat for national and international migratory birds, with a number of locally extinct species also re-establishing in the Mangere Inlet. In addition, a comprehensive range of threatened flora and fauna has been recorded from the Onehunga/Mangere area. There is long established behaviour of the shore and wading birds that take advantage of the tidal difference for foraging between the Waitemata and Manukau Harbours.

18.     NZTA’s business case considers the Onehunga/Penrose business area to be of national economic significance. The Onehunga-Penrose industrial hub is a significant economic area for Auckland and New Zealand, contributing $5 billion a year in Gross Domestic Product and employing over 64,000 people. Many of New Zealand’s largest distribution and logistics facilities are located there because access to both state highways and connections to the rail network create efficiencies in freight movements for Auckland and the Upper North Island. This area currently suffers from significant congestion, especially at the approaches to SH20 and SH1, which hinders freight movements and ultimately restricts productivity and economic growth.

19.     Overall, it is likely that the proposal will affect nationally significant areas.

Will the proposed EWL road affect or is likely to affect or is relevant to New Zealand’s international obligations to the global environment?

20.     The East West Link proposal is not likely to directly affect New Zealand’s international obligations to the global environment. However, New Zealand’s obligations under the Framework Convention on Climate Change may be a relevant factor.

Whether the matter results in or is likely to result in or contribute to significant or irreversible changes to the environment (including the global environment)?

21.     The East West Link proposal stretches approximately 5.5 km between Onehunga Port and SH1, Penrose. The preferred route for the road will affect business land and public open space, and it is expected that the foreshore section will involve reclamation and construction of new ramp structures in the Coastal Marine Area. There are also expected to be visual and noise effects as well as effects on vegetation and ecology. The proposal will therefore likely result in significant, irreversible changes to the environment.

Will assist the Crown in fulfilling its public health, welfare, security, or safety obligations or functions?

22.     The East West Link proposal will assist the Crown in fulfilling safety obligations in terms of traffic safety in the Onehunga-Penrose area. The project will improve travel times, safety and travel time reliability in the Onehunga–Penrose area and SH1 and SH20 for all modes.

Whether the matter involves or is likely to involve technology, processes, or methods that are new to New Zealand and that may affect its environment?

23.     The construction of the East West Link may involve technology, processes or methods that are new to New Zealand. However, it is considered that these will not contribute to any significant effects on the environment, and in fact would more likely be used to minimise the effects on the environment from the construction and operation.

24.     NZTA is also investigating the best methods for avoiding the release of contaminants from closed landfills.

Whether the matter is or is likely to be significant in terms of Section 8?

25.     Section 8 of the RMA refers to taking into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.  NZTA’s engagement with relevant mana whenua groups is discussed in the Māori Impact Statement in this report. 

Whether the matter affects or is likely to affect more than 1 region or district?

26.     The East West Link project is located entirely within the Auckland region in both the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki and Mangere Ōtāhuhu Local Board areas. The NZTA Business Case considers that the proposal is likely to generate effects on the Northland and Waikato regions through more efficient freight movement.

Whether the matter relates to a network utility operation that extends or is proposed to extend to more than 1 district or region?

27.     The East West Link is a proposed strategic transport corridor that will connect the Western Ring Route (SH20) at Onehunga and the Southern Motorway (SH1), providing improved access to the rail freight hub at Metroport and indirectly to major employment areas, such as East Tāmaki. The East West Link road is within the Auckland region and connects to SH1 and SH20, which are part of the State Highway network that extends throughout various regions in New Zealand.


Should the East West Link be referred to a Board of Inquiry, the Environment Court or Auckland Council? 

28.     Auckland Council would ordinarily process notices of requirement and resource consent applications for projects within its region.  The Resource Management Act 1991 enables such applications to be processed by the Environment Court or a Board of Inquiry if directed by a Minister.  Refer to Attachment D for an overview of the Board of Inquiry process. 

29.     Decision-making by a Board of Inquiry or the Environment Court is faster than the usual council process, and appeal rights are limited on points of law to the High Court.

30.     The council process potentially provides the most comfortable environment for submitters, and is certainly less formal than hearings conducted by the Environment Court.  A Board process can be seen as a hybrid: the Board is likely to include decision-makers with local knowledge, would be in a local and accessible facility but would allow cross examination.

31.     If the council processes the East West Link applications it must only exercise a regulatory role.  If the Environment Court or a Board is the decision-maker, the council has the ability to make a submission on East West Link and present expert evidence at the hearing (a submission may be in support, may be in opposition or be neutral). The Council could make a submission, which may be advantageous for expressing its views has about the proposal, especially given Panuku’s role in the Transform Onehunga Project.

32.     Overall it is considered that the Board of Inquiry is the most suitable option for the East West Link as it strikes a balance between the most efficient method to process the proposal (of national significance) while still enabling the general public to participate without legal representation in a similar setting to a council hearing.

Does Auckland Council have capacity to process East West Link applications?

33.     Auckland Council is the largest local authority in New Zealand.  Processing complex projects involving notices of requirement and multiple resource consent applications is within the capacity of the council. 

Suggestions for potential Board of Inquiry members

34.     Any list of potential Board of Inquiry members should include candidates that have significant experience and expertise in one or more of the following areas: 

·   ecology/coastal processes

·   engineering

·   landscape architecture/urban design

·   resource management planning

·   transport planning

·   tikanga Māori

35.     It is recommended that the Chair and Deputy Chair of this committee be delegated to compile a list of names as potential Board of Inquiry members and forward this list onto the Environmental Protection Authority as part of the response letter. The General Manager Plans and Places, Team Manager Major Infrastructure Assessments and a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board would be able to support them in this task.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

36.     The East West Link project is located primarily within the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area and part of the eastern portion of the project is in the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board area. The views of the boards have not been sought on this process.

37.     The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board Plan 2014 acknowledges the East West Link project as being a key project to meet the needs of local businesses and outlines two key initiatives in relation to the project:

i.        advocate for the East-West Link to deliver on community and business expectations

ii.       advocate and provide advice for ecological restoration along the water’s edge as part of transport projects such as the East West Link.

38.     NZTA briefed the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board on 1 June 2016 and the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board on 14 June 2016. The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board Chair also attended the NZTA presentation to this committee on 15 June 2016. 

39.     Council staff will update the local boards as the project progresses.  One such briefing is scheduled with the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board on 28 June 2016.

40.     Local board views can be incorporated into a future Auckland Council submission if the East West Link is considered by a Board of Inquiry or the Environment Court.  If the Ministers refer the East West Link applications to the council for processing, local board views can be incorporated into the hearing report. 

41.     Consideration of the merits of the proposal is separate from advising the Ministers of the council’s views on whether East West Link is of national significance, how the applications should be processed, or who should be appointed to a Board of Inquiry, if one is established.

Māori impact statement

42.     There are a number of features along the proposed East West Link route understood to be of especial significance to Māori.

43.     Hopua Crater is a geological feature (tuff crater) at Onehunga through which State Highway 20 passes.  East West Link is to connect to State Highway One at Onehunga.  The draft applications intend to limit further impacts on the crater by minimising works in this location. 

44.     It is understood that as part of the Manukau Harbour, the Manukau Inlet was a food source for Māori.  It provides habitat for wading and migratory birds, was a transportation route and as a waterbody its mauri is of cultural importance.

45.     NZTA intends to construct the East West Link along the northern side of the Manukau Inlet.  New reclamation is proposed along part of the route.  In other places the road would be constructed on former landfill.  (The original coastline is no longer visible as landfills reclaimed land along the northern side of the Inlet).

46.     The Waitangi Tribunal's Manukau Report of 1985 found that the Crown had failed to recognise Treaty rights to land and traditional seafood resources and had not provided the protection promised. For the several hapū involved in the Manukau Claim, the spiritual and physical well-being of the harbour was, and still is, all-important. (Museum of New Zealand, Te Papa Tongarewa, undated).

47.     Works to State Highway 1 are proposed, including additional construction over Otahuhu Creek.  This waterbody is the eastern end of the portage Te Tapotu o Tainui between the Manukau Harbour and Tamaki River (and beyond to the Waitemata Harbour). The portage is of high cultural significance as a transportation route. A journal article comments: the Ōtāhuhu portage was the most important in the immediate Tāmaki Makaurau area because of its central position, length, and easy gradient. Slightly under one kilometre in length it was the shortest portage between the east and west coasts of New Zealand and was one of the main links in the communication network between the northern and central districts of the North Island (Hooker, B. Auckland-Waikato Historical Journal No. 70 (September 1997)).

48.     NZTA advises that Mana Whenua are a key project partner and that consultation is ongoing. A summary of Mana Whenua engagement is included at Attachment C.

 

49.     Understanding of Māori values, tikanga Māori, and Part 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991 will be critical for decision-making on NZTA’s applications for East West Link.  It is recommended that, if a Board of Inquiry is appointed, at least one Board member appointed has specialist expertise in this area. 

Implementation

50.     Council staff will prepare a written response to the Environmental Protection Authority that conveys the committee’s resolutions. 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Attachment A - East West Link Map for public consultation

93

bView

Attachment B - Letter on behalf of the Minister for the Environment

95

cView

Attachment C - East West Link - Summary of Mana Whenua engagement for Auckland Council

97

dView

Attachment D - Environmental Protection Agency Fact Sheet - The roles of council in proposals of national significance

99

     

Signatories

Author

Rebecca Greaves - Principal Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

 


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

Submission on proposed National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity

 

File No.: CP2016/13508

 

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is to seek Auckland Development Committee approval of the draft Auckland Council submission on the proposed National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity.

Executive summary

2.       On 2 June 2016 the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) released the proposed National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity (NPSUDC). The intended purpose of the NPSUDC is to ensure that Council plans provide sufficient development capacity in urban areas for housing and business. The NPSUDC has been developed in the context of a wider programme of legislative and policy planning reform and inquiry by the Government.

3.       The council has worked with Auckland Transport in the preparation of this submission. Council’s submission also reflects the feedback of a number of its local boards. Council’s submission is in general alignment with Watercare Services Limited’s separate submission.

4.      Overall, the draft submission is supportive of the NPSUDC as it acknowledges the importance of land-use and integrated infrastructure co-ordination and applies a short, medium and long-term framework to considering the issues the NPSUDC addresses. 

5.      A key stated purpose of the NPSUDC is to reduce regulatory barriers to the supply of housing and achieve greater housing affordability. However, there is a weak link between the NPSUDC’s purposes, objectives and policies, and how the NPSUDC addresses housing affordability. The removal of supply constraints may help to stimulate more supply, but there are other barriers and issues at play with regard to housing affordability.

6.       Objective OA1 clearly defines one of the desired outcomes of the NPSDUC as enabling “effective and efficient urban areas that provide for social, economic, cultural and environmental well-being”.   However, there is little explicit recognition and direct connection between these well-beings in the overarching objective and the specific policies within the proposed NPSDUC. The council recommends MfE takes steps to ensure the social, economic, cultural and environmental well-beings are clearly cascaded from the objectives into the policies.

 

7.       Specific issues around the definitions and interpretation of the NPSUDC are also noted in more detail in the draft submission. Clear and unambiguous definitions are key to ensuring the successful implementation of the proposed NPSUDC. Ambiguous definitions will result in delays and increased costs as parties argue around interpretations or seek clarity via court processes.  The draft submission therefore proposes a number of changes to the proposed definitions.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      endorse the content of Auckland Council’s draft submission to the Ministry for the Environment and Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment on the proposed National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity, as set out in this report.

b)      authorise the Committee Chair and Deputy Chair to finalise and approve Auckland Council’s submission on the proposed National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity.

Comments

8.       On 2 June 2016, MfE and MBIE released the proposed NPSUDC consultation documents, provided as Attachment A. 

9.       A National Policy Statement is a directive policy that Councils must comply with when making decisions on:

i.    Regional Plans

ii.    District Plans

iii.   Resource consent decisions.

10.     If Councils do not comply, then the Government or any other party can challenge plan or consent decisions in the Environment Court.  Under section 25A of the Resource Management Act, the Minister for the Environment can also direct a plan change.

Context and key dates

11.     The NPSUDC has been developed in the context of a wider programme of legislative and policy planning reform/inquiry by the Government.  This has included the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill and the Productivity Commission Better Urban Planning Inquiry.

12.     Prior to the release of the proposed NPSUDC, officials from MfE and MBIE met with Council officers across New Zealand to inform them about the range of potential approaches to the proposed NPSUDC.

13.     The submissions close on 15 July 2016.  Final decisions on the NPSUDC will be made in October 2016, noting that the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas legislation will expire in mid-September 2016.

Composition of proposed National Policy Statement

14.     The proposed NPSUDC’s overarching purpose is to ensure that Council plans provide sufficient development capacity in urban areas for housing and business.  It classifies urban areas as high growth, medium growth and other main urban areas.   Auckland qualifies as a high growth urban area. 

15.     The proposed NPSUDC is comprised of a set of objectives and policies.  These have been grouped under four key areas:

i.    Outcomes

ii.    Evidence to support decision making

iii.   Coordinated evidence base and decision making

iv.  Responsive planning 

Not all objectives and policies will apply to all local authorities; however as a high growth urban area covered by one local authority, Auckland Council will need to respond to all objectives and policies. 

16.     Key definitions as proposed by MfE and MBIE are as follows:

·     Sufficient – enough development capacity to meet residential and business demand, plus an additional margin of at least 20% above projected short and medium term demand and 15% over and above projected long-term demand.

·     Development capacity – the capacity of land for urban development to meet demand, taking into account planning regulations and infrastructure (existing or likely to exist).

·     Infrastructure – network infrastructure for water supply, wastewater, stormwater, transport and passenger transport services.

·     Demand – the total quantum of development capacity required to meet projected household and business growth; and the range of demands of different people and businesses for different types and sizes of dwellings and business spaces, in different locations and at different price points.

Draft submission

Proposed key messages within the draft submission include:

17.     The NPSUDC provides an additional legislative framework that supports urban areas to change; the council and its CCOs agree that planning should be responsive to growth and acknowledge the importance of land-use and integrated infrastructure coordination and investment as a critical enabler of development. 

18.     The council supports the short, medium and long-term framework within the proposed NPS. These timeframes align with various council planning timeframes.

19.     The council supports a NPSUDC that is scalable to different locations throughout the country. Not all areas will experience significant growth and the proposed structure introduces an appropriate amount of flexibility.

20.     A key purpose of the NPSUDC is to reduce regulatory barriers to the supply of housing and achieve greater housing affordability. There is a weak link between the NPSUDC’s purposes, objectives and policies, and how the NPSUDC addresses housing affordability.  The council advocates for a wider suite of tools to address the housing affordability gap.

21.     The council supports the use of a solid and shared evidence base to support decision making.

22.     Further work may be required on the effect of this NPS on Māori own land or land subject to Treaty Settlements processes as raised by mana whenua. 

23.     Objective OA1 clearly defines one of the desired outcomes of the NPSDUC as enabling “effective and efficient urban areas that provide for social, economic, cultural and environmental well-being”.   However, there is little explicit recognition and direct connection between these well-beings in the overarching objective and the specific policies within the proposed NPSDUC. The council recommends MfE takes steps to ensure the social, economic, cultural and environmental well-beings are clearly cascaded from the objectives into the policies.

 

24.     Clear and unambiguous definitions are necessary to ensuring the successful implementation of the proposed NPSUDC. Ambiguous definitions will result in delays and increased costs as parties argue around interpretations or seek clarity via court processes.  The draft submission therefore proposes a number of changes to the proposed definitions to improve clarity. These changes are addressed in more detail in the body of the submission.

25.     The draft submission is attached as Attachment B.

Considerations

Local board views and implications

26.     The implications of the proposed NPSUDC apply across the region and to all local boards.

27.     On 2 June 2016 when the proposed NPSUDC was released, a copy of the document and any supporting material was provided to all elected members. Local board chairs or their nominees were invited to attend an Auckland Development Committee workshop on 15 June 2016 and to provide feedback.

28.     Formal feedback was received from Hibiscus and Bays and Papakura Local Boards (Attachments C and D).

29.     The Franklin Local Board and Kaipatiki Local Board have also provided informal feedback which has been taken into account when developing the draft submission. 

30.     In particular, Franklin Local Board supports the intent in the NPSUDC requiring territorial local authorities to collaborate, requiring on-going monitoring and review of key indicators and requiring councils to put in place evidence-based timelines and sequencing for land and infrastructure development.

31.     Informal feedback from the Kaipatiki Local Board supports a wider definition of infrastructure, including all utilities and social infrastructure. This has been incorporated into the overall feedback on the NPSUDC definition of infrastructure.  The Board also notes that the NPSUDC does not appear to recognise or address challenges arising from the differing nexuses between residential and business/commercial land. 

Māori impact statement

32.     The council has engaged with mana whenua in the course of responding to the NPSUDC.

33.     The NPSUDC does not in itself directly make provision for affordable housing, including affordable housing that meets the needs of Māori.  However, if the NPSUDC is effective, affordable housing and an increase in home ownership by Māori in the Auckland area may be an outcome. 

34.     There is no mandatory requirement within the NPSUDC to ensure iwi/mana whenua are included as stakeholders in engagement and the timeframes prescribed in the NPSUDC may limit opportunities for robust engagement with key stakeholders.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

NPSUDC consultation documents

107

bView

Proposed submission

147

cView

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board feedback

163

dView

Papakura Local Board feedback

165

     

Signatories

Authors

Christina Kaiser - Principal Strategic Advisor

Regan Solomon - Acting Manager, Research & Evaluation Unit

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

 


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 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


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

Auckland Council Submission on the Proposed National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity, July 2016

 

Introduction                                                   

 

Auckland Council (“the council”) welcomes the Proposed National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity Development (“NPSUDC”).  The council supports the underlying purpose of the NPSUDC to ensure a greater focus on enabling urban change and ensuring sufficient development capacity for housing and businesses.

 

The council recognises that there are other significant planning reforms and processes currently underway. Nationally, these include the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill [1] and the Productivity Commission inquiry on Better Urban Planning[2].

 

Auckland context

 

Auckland is home to the largest urban population in the country, with a population projected to reach more than 2.2 million by 2043. Continued population growth is driving the expansion of city services as more of Auckland becomes urbanised. This growth poses significant challenges for the alignment of investment and planning decisions required to house Aucklanders and the delivery of significant infrastructure required for the future. Council is of the view that the NPSUDC supports the implementation of council’s growth and development strategies.

 

Council’s submission

 

The council has worked with Auckland Transport in the preparation of this submission. Council’s submission also reflects the feedback of a number of its local boards. Watercare Services Limited is making a separate submission.

 

The council has reviewed the NPSUDC Consultation Document and Summary Document. The council’s feedback is based on the Consultation Document and focuses on the following: Interpretations (definitions), Objectives, and Policies. The council’s submission indicates where there is agreement, disagreement, or further clarification required. The council provides recommendations to add value to or strengthen the NPSUDC’s objectives and policies. 

Council’s overall comments

 

The council is in general support of this proposed NPSUDC, and notes the following:

 

·    The NPSUDC provides an additional legislative framework that supports urban areas to change; the council and its CCOs, acknowledge the importance of land-use and integrated infrastructure coordination and is investing accordingly. 

 

·    The council supports the short, medium and long-term framework within the proposed NPS. These timeframes align with various council planning timeframes  e.g. the Long Term Plan (LTP), Auckland Plan[3] and Infrastructure Strategy[4]. However, the council is concerned about the requirement to balance certainty with flexibility especially given the uncertainty of issues such as infrastructure funding. Within the existing planning framework, lead in times for infrastructure planning and funding can be long, hampering the ability to react as responsively as the NPSUDC would suggest. 

 

·    Further work may be required on the effect of this NPS on Maori own land or land subject to Treaty Settlements processes as raised by mana whenua.

 

·    The council would support robust and timely guidance from MfE and MBIE on the NPS’s implementation. The development of the guidance needs to carefully consider definitional issues and the practicalities of achieving some of the policies in particular. 

 

·    The council supports an NPSUDC that is scalable to different locations throughout the country. Not all areas will experience significant growth and the proposed structure introduces an appropriate amount of flexibility. A balance must be struck between achieving certainty of outcomes for all parties and ensuring flexibility in the process and approach to support achieving the best outcomes, and allow for ongoing innovation.

 

·    A key purpose of the NPSUDC is to reduce regulatory barriers to the supply of housing and achieve greater housing affordability. There is a weak link between the NPS’s objectives and policies, and how the NPSUDC addresses housing affordability as opposed to supply. As the council noted in its submission to the Productivity Commission[5], the removal of supply constraints may help to stimulate more supply, but there are other barriers and issues at play with regard to affordability. The council advocates for a suite of tools to address the housing affordability gap.

 

·    Objective OA1 clearly defines one of the desired outcomes of the NPSDUC as enabling “effective and efficient urban areas that provide for social, economic, cultural and environmental well-being”.   However, there is little explicit recognition and direct connection between these well-beings in the overarching objective and the specific policies within the proposed NPSDUC. The council recommends MfE takes steps to ensure the social, economic, cultural and environmental well-beings are clearly cascaded from the objectives into the policies.

 

·    The council supports the use of a solid and shared evidence base to support decision making, having  noted[6] that difficulties arise when different agencies, organisations, stakeholders and community groups either do not use the same data and evidence to inform their views and/or do not understand the basis or tools used for this evidence. Assumptions and limitations underpinning data used for evidence need to be made explicit.

 

·    Funding infrastructure to support supply is fundamental to the long term aspects of the NPS. The council has significant future funding challenges, and is therefore concerned that there is not greater focus on addressing funding in the NPSUDC.

 

·    Clear and unambiguous definitions are critical to ensuring the successful implementation of the proposed NPSUDC. Ambiguous definitions will result in delays and increased costs as parties argue around interpretations or seek clarity via court processes.  The draft submission therefore proposes a number of changes to the proposed definitions.  These changes and the related issues are addressed in the following section.

 

 

 

 

 


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

Definitions and Interpretations

Clear and unambiguous definitions are key to ensuring the successful implementation of the proposed NPS. Ambiguous definitions will result in delays and increased costs as parties argue around interpretations or seek clarity via court processes.  The council recommends changes to proposed definitions. The accompanying reasons are provided below. 

 

Definitions and Interpretations

 

Council Position

 

Business land means land that is zoned for productive economic activities in urban areas, including but not limited to the following:

·         industrial

·         commercial

·         retail

·         business and business parks

·         mixed use and centres, to the extent that it is available for productive economic activities.

 

but does not include residential dwellings that are also used for a productive economic activity such as home occupations.

The council requests the definition be amended to acknowledge that residential dwellings and home based occupations are a productive economic activity. However forecasting this aspect of business growth would be very difficult and the methodology for doing so would need to be thought through carefully. 

Decision maker means all persons exercising functions and powers under the Act.

The council notes this is a broad definition and will include various Ministers acting in differing capacities.

Development capacity means in relation to residential and business land, the capacity of land for urban development to meet demand, taking into account the following factors:

  • the zoning, objectives, policies, rules and overlays that apply to the land; and
  • the provision of adequate infrastructure, existing or likely to exist, to support the development of the land, having regard to—
  • the relevant proposed and operative regional policy statements, regional plans and district plans; and
  • any relevant management plans and strategies prepared under other Acts.

The council agrees in principle with the definition of development capacity but requests clarification to provisions relating to infrastructure. The council requests that the NPSUDC clearly define what is meant by ‘adequate infrastructure’ and ‘likely to exist’ as these are critical terms in defining development capacity. The council requests that ‘actual or likely funding sources and mechanisms’ be added as fifth bullet point needing consideration. The council also requests that the constraints in protecting corridors for horizontal infrastructure are recognised and also considered a factor if infrastructure is likely to exist.

 

Greater definition is required with regard to the phrase “likely to exist”. As a minimum, likely to exist should require infrastructure to be identified in the LTP/ RLTP or confirmed in a legally binding obligation if by private means in order to be considered likely to exist for short to medium term planning. The phrase “likely to exist” mirrors similar provisions in section 16(3) of the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act but the council has found it challenging to define and apply this test.  In order for council funding to be ‘likely’ it would need to be identified in the LTP as it is the official and audited view of funding intentions. The Regional Land Transport Plan also includes NZTA and KiwiRail projects so provides a relatively broad view of infrastructure projects (excluding central government projects referred to above).

 

The council notes that the availability of finance is not something local authorities must have regard to, despite it being a major consideration in the medium and long term. To address this issue, as noted above, the council has requested that ‘actual or likely funding sources and mechanisms’ be added as a mandatory consideration. The council’s view is that infrastructure funding is a major issue affecting all local authorities, requiring on-going work with central government agencies. Related to this, even if a project such as a new arterial road is identified for funding in a long term plan, its likelihood of implementation and timing is heavily dependent on having a suitable corridor. This is most commonly achieved by way of a designation (s. 167 RMA) and until this is in place, a project is not likely to proceed.

Feasible means the commercial viability of development, taking into account the current likely costs, revenue and yield of developing.

The council notes that commercial feasibility includes the availability of development finance and the size and structure of the construction sector are key in determining commercial feasibility. The focus on costs and revenue implies this.

 

Central government must recognise this complexity, including the roles of multiple agencies, in determining what gets built, where and when. Council would be concerned if other parties also key in contributing to the provision of housing do not respond to the NPSDUC policy settings and council was held to account for the inaction of others.

High-Growth Urban Area means:

  • Any Main Urban Area that, according to the most recent Statistics New Zealand growth projections set out in Appendix A2, is projected to experience population growth of more than 10% over the medium-term; or

 

·         Any Secondary Urban Area that at any point in the year has a combined resident and visitor population of over 30,000, and according to the most recent Statistics New Zealand growth projections set out in Appendix A2, is projected to experience population growth of more than 10% over the medium-term.

 

The council notes that, depending on the starting point for the analysis, some urban areas in Table A2 will not meet the definition of a high and/ or medium growth area. The council recommends that, for the avoidance of any doubt, 2018 is the start year for any analysis, not 2013 if table A2 remains as part of the final NPSUDC – the council’s preference is for its removal. The council recommends that table A2 be amended for clarity as per the example below. 

 

 

Table 1: Upper Hutt Zone definition

 

Year

2013

2018

2023

2028

% change 2013 - 2023

% change 2018 – 2028

Upper Hutt Zone

39000

40500

41400

42200

6.15

4.20

 

The inclusion of table A2 and the accompanying text suggests that all of the included areas are either high or medium growth urban areas. The above table demonstrates that the starting point of the analysis is necessary; there is a clear compliance cost to being defined as one thing over another.

Table one also highlights that the certainty these areas ‘being’ one thing and not another is entirely contingent on the data and assumptions used.

 

Infrastructure means network infrastructure for water supply, wastewater, stormwater, transport, and passenger transport services.

The council recommends the definition of infrastructure be expanded to include necessary urban infrastructure such as parks, open space and community facilities, as well as primary and secondary schools, state highways and the rail network.

 

The inclusion of central government infrastructure recognises their importance to creating successful urban environments, e.g. school locations and zones are a factor that households trade-off in making housing location decisions. The recognition of central government infrastructure also builds on comments made by the Officer of the Auditor General’s report[7] on the initial infrastructure strategies in which they states such strategies “should be relational … should connect to specific or wider influences affecting the city, district, or region”. Wider influence includes for example, the funding criteria, timing and processes of NZTA for transport infrastructure and they are key to delivering local and state highway roading projects.

 

The Council notes that not all infrastructure is supplied by public bodies; much is provided by private developers as part of the development process. The definition could differentiate between bulk infrastructure, which is often provided by the council, and network infrastructure, which is provided by developers[8]. The NPSUDC should concentrate on bulk infrastructure and frameworks, especially in the long term, rather than detailed consideration of local level infrastructure. A broader infrastructure definition will facilitate integrated land use and infrastructure planning and decision making, particularly over the long-term, i.e. 30 years.

 

Long-term means within the next thirty years.

The council agrees with the proposed definition. The council recommends that much more consideration be given to all objectives and policies that necessitate outputs for the ‘long term’ through the guidance development process.

 

The proposed 30 year long-term time frame is consistent with the council’s requirement to develop a Spatial Plan (s. 79 Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009). It aligns with the need for local authorities to develop an infrastructure strategy that supports coordinated land use and infrastructure planning by better reflecting the long-life nature of infrastructure assets.

 

However, there are significant technical challenges when taking a 30 year perspective. Producing a housing demand assessment by price points for 2048 will require Herculean assumptions based on interest rates and household and personal incomes to be made that, while possible, will inevitably be incorrect. Other assumptions are highly uncertain, e.g. the level of speculative investment in Auckland property. Policies requiring outputs 30 years into the future should disclose the assumptions and the level of certainty of the assumptions themselves. 

 

The Council is concerned that the NPSUDC appears to treat planning for the 30 year perspective as much more certain than it will actually be.  There is no guidance or acknowledgment in the NPSUDC about how councils are expected to balance decision-making where shorter term outcomes may be more certain with the uncertainty inherent in longer time-frames.

 

 

Given this high level of uncertainty, the council is concerned at the need to respond to an apparent supply shortfall when the long-term indicators are triggered and recommends that further consideration be given to the nature of councils’ responses to this particular trigger.  

 

Plan means an operative or proposed regional plan or a district plan.

The council notes that this definition may not be wide enough to capture a plan change or variation. If reference was had to the relevant definitions contained in s43AA of the RMA then doubt could be avoided.

 

The council notes that this definition does not appear to capture a decision on a plan variation or specifically define a plan change.

Sufficient means the provision of enough development capacity to meet residential and business demand, plus, to take account of the likelihood that not all capacity will be developed, an additional margin of at least:

   20% over and above projected short and medium-term residential and business demand; and

   15% over and above projected long-term residential and business demand.

The total capacity should reflect the demands for different types and locations.

The council agrees with the inclusion of margins, recognising that not all development capacity will be developed. The council agrees that different margins be included for sites within the urban area containing residential dwellings and business floorspace, i.e. brownfield sites, compared to those without these assets, i.e. greenfield areas.  The council requests that government officials work with the council to develop appropriate margins.

 

The probability of an area being developed is a function of many variables as Figure 1 in the consultation document implies. Sites with high levels of existing improvements (such as dwellings and car parks) are more difficult to redevelop than those without as the existing improvements must be either worked around or removed. Purchasing a site with improvements also increases the cost to purchase the site (as the purchase price includes the land and any improvements), and increases development costs, through the actual cost of demolition or removal, as well as the time taken to do so. Urban land is more likely to be fragmented in to smaller titles and with more complex legal ownership structures, e.g. apartments.

 

Brownfield areas are locations of higher demand, containing high levels of existing urban amenities with good accessibility, and consequentially higher potential sale prices. This is countered by the ‘inertia’ in the existing built forms and cadastral patterns that limit the impact of rule changes to a smaller number of sites, of which only a few will be feasible. Existing improvements also provide a buffering effect to existing land owners who can gain sufficient utility (use value, rental return or enjoyment) from those improvements to not be motivated to take up new opportunities even if provided.

 

Greenfield areas on the other hand are often, but not always, defined by low levels of improvements and are relatively unfragmented land holdings, in fee simple ownership. They may have less demand due to their relative lack of accessibility, and lower sale prices. The feasibility-to-plan ratio is generally higher due to the combination of flexibility a blank slate provides, and the embeddedness of the planning system in land owner and developer’s intentions, and expectations.

 

As such, it is appropriate that the definition of ‘sufficient’ differentiates between brownfield and greenfield sites. The council would welcome the opportunity to work with government officials on these margins given the commercial feasibility work it undertook as part of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

 

Urban area means an area with urban characteristics and a moderate to high concentration of population, irrespective of local authority boundaries.

The council disagrees on the proposed definition of urban area. The council recommends that the local authorities determine what is defined as an ‘urban area’.

 

The proposed definition is ambiguous. Auckland’s proposed greenfield growth areas are zoned ‘future urban’ and as such have rural rather than urban characteristics at present.

 

Auckland’s definition of the urban areas in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan is ‘land zoned residential or business, together with supporting special purpose and public open space zones within the Auckland metropolitan area and satellite towns, rural and coastal towns, serviced and unserviced villages’. The council believes this definition is appropriate for this policy statement. The council also considers that local authorities are best placed to determine what is and is not an urban area. Council acknowledges that this may make inter-council comparisons difficult.

 

Market activity

Market activity is not defined in the NPSUDC, it may warrant a definition.

 

 


Objectives and Policies

The council supports the objective and policies associated with decision making. The council agrees that all those exercising functions and powers in the RMA should enable urban areas to change by ensuring adequate development capacity for that change to occur. The council’s comments and suggestion on the individual objectives and policies are below.

 

Objectives and Policies

 

Council Position

Objective A1: To support effective and efficient urban areas that enable people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing.

The council notes the definitional differences between the summary and consultation documents. The council requests that ‘environment’ be included in OA1.

 

The consultation document wording is consistent with s. 5(2) of the Resource Management Act (1991).

Objective A2: To provide sufficient residential and business development capacity to enable urban areas to meet residential and business demand.

The council agrees with this objective.

Objective A3: To enable ongoing development and change in urban areas.

The council agrees with this objective. The council recommends that this be moved forward to OA1 as an indication of the significance of enabling change.

 

Policy A1: By decision-makers:

·         Providing for an urban form that maximises the potential for social and economic exchange within the urban area.

·         Providing for the efficient use of resources, having particular regard to scarce urban land and infrastructure.

·         Enabling the competitive operation of land and development markets.

The council agrees with this policy. The council recommends that ‘cultural exchange’ be included in the first bullet point.

 

The council supports PA1 especially the focus on the efficient use of resources, having particular regard to scarce urban land and infrastructure. In addition, decision-makers are concerned with the value for money (not just affording the infrastructure) of infrastructure investment and the environmental outcomes.

 

Policy A2: By local authorities providing at all times sufficient residential and business development capacity for the short, medium and long terms.

The council supports in principle this policy however it is concerned about the practicalities of providing sufficient capacity ‘at all times’. 

 

The council’s concerns relate to the definition of sufficient and development capacity.  The council also notes that in developing our 30 year infrastructure strategy, the council identified a significant funding gap between its most recent LTP proposals and its desired Auckland Plan outcomes.  Given long lead in times for some infrastructure projects and the need to ensure integration of infrastructure projects, there are very limited opportunities to change funding decisions mid-project.  This does not appear to be recognised within the NPSUDC.  The council recommends that further consideration be given to the ability of councils’ to respond “at all times”.

 

Policy A3: When considering the effects of urban development, decision-makers must:

·         Recognise and provide for the contribution that urban development will make to the ability for people and communities and future generations to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing.

·         Provide sufficient development capacity, whilst maximising the positive effects of development, and minimising the adverse effects of development.

·         Have particular regard to the positive effects of urban development at a national, regional and district scale, as well as its local effects.

The council recommends that the policy acknowledge that urban land is a scarce ‘and finite’ resource that must be used efficiently. The council requests that the second bullet points be reworded to state ‘avoiding, minimising, or remedying the adverse effects of development’. The council agrees considering the positive effects of change are required. The council requests that the NPSUDC guidance advise on how ‘national effects’ be considered.  

 

Urban land is scarce and finite resource that must be used efficiently. Providing sufficient development capacity need not produce adverse effects on the environment; a commercial development on an empty brownfield site could have positive stormwater impacts by incorporating environmental design. The wording changes recognise this and it aligns with the need to consider the positive effects of change. The guidance material will have to address how national effects are considered – the council suggests that consideration focus on the medium and long term and that value for money be considered an effect, especially as it relates to infrastructure.

 

 


Objectives and Policies Group B: Evidence and monitoring

The council is committed to evidence based decision-making. An evidence base is required as part of the Auckland Plan (s. 79) and recent RMA amendments, particularly those encouraging cost-benefit analysis, encourage the on-going use of evidence and analysis. Council’s comments and suggestions on the individual objectives and policies are below.

 

Objectives and Policies Group B: Evidence and monitoring

 

 

Council Position

Objective B1: To ensure plans and regional policy statements are based on a robust, accurate and frequently-updated evidence base.

The council agrees that that plans and policies are based on accurate and contemporary evidence.  

 

This objective is consistent with Local Government and RMA requirements stipulating the importance of using evidence. Auckland Council supports evidence based decision-making by all those exercising decision-making responsibilities under the RMA.

Policy B1: Local authorities must, by the end of 2018, or within 12 months of becoming a Medium or High Growth Urban Area, and thereafter on at least a three-yearly basis, carry out:

·         A Housing Assessment that estimates the demand for dwellings, including the demand of different groups in the population for different types of dwellings, locations and price points, and the supply of development capacity to meet that demand, in the short, medium and long-terms; and

·         A Business Land Assessment that estimates the demand for the different types and locations of floor area for the local business sectors, and the supply of development capacity to meet that demand, in the short, medium and long-terms.

Local authorities must have regard to the benefits of publishing the assessments under policy PB1.

The council agrees on the need for a Housing Assessment. The council recommends that the requirement be reworded a ‘Housing Needs Assessment’ that estimates need for dwellings and needs of different groups’. The council recommends the business assessment be renamed a ‘Business Land and Floorspace Assessment’. The council recommends the assessment be reworded to emphasise the ‘interactions between supply and demand’. The council recommends the guidance outline what is meant by a ‘local business sector’.

 

The housing and business land and space assessments could be a useful piece of planning evidence. The council is concerned that current wording implies that demand is fixed and that the planning system is interpreted as a supply side response. This is not correct; Statistics New Zealand incorporate planning information into their Census Area Unit population projects.

 

The requirement for the Housing Needs Assessment includes different groups in the population and the equity of housing experiences between different groups. The guidance should encourage local authorities to think broadly about the groups being analysed as part of assessment; housing experiences and outcomes are significantly different between different ethnic groups for example. The housing assessments could be aligned with housing continuum models. These models disaggregate ‘social housing’ into emergency housing, supported rental and assisted rental for instance. This suggests that collectively, local authorities could produce the demand and supply housing needs assessments for Housing New Zealand. The council requests that the guidance consider how this information might overlap with existing forecasting process such that the complement rather than duplicate effort of all parties.

 

Māori housing is a particular concern across the country. The housing needs assessment should recognise and provide for cultural urban development such as urban papakāinga and marae.

 

Auckland’s business environment is local, national and global. An interpretation of the ‘local business sector’ needs to be developed and included within the guidance.

Policy B2: In carrying out the assessments required under policy PB1, local authorities must have particular regard to:

·         Demographic change, including population growth and household size projections, using the most recent Statistics New Zealand growth projections set out in Appendix A2.

·         Future changes in the sectoral composition of the local economy and the impacts that this might have on residential and business demand.

·         Information on the market’s response to planning obtained through monitoring under PB5.

The council agrees with the need to have regard to Statistics New Zealand projections. The council recommends that table A2 be removed. The council recommends that the objective be reworded to ‘require local authorities to have regard to Statistics New Zealand’s most recent projection series and the ranges within it, when developing the assessments under PB1’.

 

Statistics New Zealand’s population projections are very useful for planning assets and services. They produce a range of population growth scenarios reflecting the fact that the future is unknown and subject to change. The inclusion of table A2 and the requirement for the NPSUDC to be based on this position locks all local authorities into a single and narrow view of the future, lacking any potential variation. Population projections are updated following censuses; the specification of a single data set is therefore problematic, especially as it excludes the range of possible projection outcomes.

 

Statistics New Zealand incorporate supply information into their projections. Their census area unit projects include “information provided by local planners (e.g. housing subdivisions, zoning changes)”. The proposed NPSUDC appears to consider demand and supply as independent of one another which is not the case as Statistics New Zealand state. Supply and demand are interdependent; the assessments to be completed as part of PB1 will acknowledge this and be incorporated into the methodologies.

 

The council notes the possibility of different population projections between those required under this NPSUDC and those disclosed by councils as a key forecasting assumption in their LTP. This could create a disjuncture between these two key planning documents, which is perhaps mitigated by the need to ‘have regard to’.

 

 

The NPSUDC holds the assumption that markets outcomes will always be efficient and equitable, and moreover that market flaws may be resolved by means of furthering competition. Market outcomes may not be socially optimal; market power is shared across heterogeneous agents based on wealth differences and particular interests. Thus, desirable social outcomes are not guaranteed. The NPSUDC should acknowledge that the market is not perfect, cannot resolve its flaws by itself but rather requires close monitoring and enhancement from policies and regulations that should introduce other equity issues that markets do not incorporate.

Policy B3: In carrying out the assessments required under policy PB1, local authorities must estimate the sufficiency of development capacity provided by its plans and proposed and operative regional policy statements, having particular regard to:

·         The cumulative effect of all zoning, objectives, policies, rules and overlays in plans, and the effect this will have on opportunities for development being taken up.

·         The actual and likely availability of infrastructure.

·         The current physical and commercial feasibility of development capacity.

·         The likelihood of opportunities for development being taken up.

 

and must estimate the additional development capacity needed if any of these factors indicate that the supply of development capacity is not likely to meet demand in the short, medium or long-term.

 

The council agrees that development capacity should consider the cumulative effects as outlined in bullet point one. The council notes that the requirement ‘estimate the additional development capacity’ combined with the margins required to be added under the definition of ‘sufficient’ could be duplicative.   

 

The definition of sufficient acknowledges that not all development capacity will be consumed; some ‘headroom’ is supported. However PB3 also requires an estimate of additional development capacity if any of the factors indicate supply not meeting demand. There is potential duplication here which needs to be resolved in developing the guidance.

Policy B4: In carrying out the assessments required under policy PB1, local authorities must consult with infrastructure providers, community and social housing providers, the property development sector and any other stakeholders as they see fit.

The council recommends the policy be reworded requiring local authorities to ‘work with’ rather than consult the identified stakeholders.

 

Consultation has specific legal meaning. The council is continually engaging with a range of stakeholders and will continue to do so outside of statutory consultation requirements; the council does not want unnecessary statutory consultation requirements imposed on it.  

 

Policy B5: To ensure that local authorities are well-informed about the market’s response to planning, local authorities must monitor a range of indicators on a quarterly basis, or as frequently as possible, including:

·      The relative affordability of housing, including the ratio of house price to income and the relative cost to rent;

·      The increase in house prices and rents;

·      The number of resource and building consents granted relative to the growth in population;

·      Vacancy rates for business land;

·      The ratio of the value of land between rural and urban zoned land; and

·      The ratio of the value of improvements to the value of land within the urban area.

Local authorities must have regard to the benefits of publishing the results of its monitoring under policy PB5.

The council agrees for the need to monitor a range of indicators. The council recommends that some of the proposed indicators be removed and others be considered for inclusion (see comments below).

 

Ongoing monitoring is useful in understanding how things are changing, however the proposed indicators are not enough to improve the understanding of how planning is enabling the market to meet needs of people and communities. Some of the proposed indicators do not appear relevant to the objectives of the NPS. The council recommends that the requirement to monitor the number of resource and building consents granted relative to the growth in population is removed. The suggestion of a relationship between natural increase and resource consents is highly tentative, especially over a four month period. 

 

The council suggests that the monitoring requirements consider the need to differentiate between existing owners (investors) and non-owners. For affordability and equity purposes, non-owners may be a key group of interest as their participation in the housing market may directly reflect the expansion of supply and improvements on affordability.

 

The proposed indicators are potentially too narrow. If a long-term perspective is taken, then monitoring variables like transport costs as proportion of income, which is a feature that people consider when making housing location decisions, is relevant. If the housing needs assessment disaggregates the population into different cohorts and components, then it seems logically that the monitoring requirements should match accordingly.

 

The council considers that the monitoring requirements associated with the NPSUDC could be explicitly referenced in s. 35 of the RMA. If this occurred then monitoring costs could be funded, or part funded, through charges set under s. 36. We request that work be undertaken to determine if this is possible and appropriate.

 


Objectives and policies group C: Coordinated evidence and decision-making

The council agrees that co-ordinated decision making using evidence is good planning practice. While this section is primarily concerned with relationships and arrangements of local authorities and infrastructure providers working within a shared jurisdiction, Auckland has important infrastructure relationships with the Waikato as it relates to potable water supply. Co-ordination between Auckland and these local authorities is fundamental. The council’s comments and suggestions on the individual objectives and policies are below.

 

Objectives and policies group C: Coordinated evidence and decision-making

 

 

Council Position

Objective C1: To promote coordination within and between local authorities and infrastructure providers in urban areas, consistent planning decisions, integrated land use and infrastructure planning, and responsive planning processes.

The council agrees that coordination and integration within and between local authorities and infrastructure providers is necessary.   

 

This objective will encourage local authorities and infrastructure providers with jurisdiction over one or more urban area to work together. The council notes that while the focus on the physical aspects of infrastructure is important e.g. dams, treatment plants in the case of water, due consideration on the availability of natural resources, in this case the water itself, is often of secondary importance.

Policy C1: When developing plans and regional policy statements to implement this National Policy Statement, local authorities must consult with other local authorities, local infrastructure providers and central government infrastructure providers that share jurisdiction over a Medium Growth Urban Area or a High Growth Urban Area.

The council agrees with this policy.

Policy C2: The relevant local authorities and infrastructure providers will work together to agree on data and projections used in the development of the assessments required under policy PB1.

The council agrees with this policy.

Policy C3: The relevant local authorities and infrastructure providers will work together to, as far as possible, ensure coordinated land use planning and infrastructure provision, including expected levels of service for infrastructure.

The council agrees with this policy. The council notes that working over the long-term will require the council to continue to engage with local authorities outside the region.  With respect to PC3, the integration of land use planning and infrastructure provision implies that both are to be planned simultaneously. This approach has been confirmed by the Environment Court (Foreworld v NCC) where it has been held that “it is bad resource management practice…..to zone land for an activity when the infrastructure necessary to allow that activity to occur without adverse effects on the environment does not exist, and there is no commitment to provide it”. However, this ruling has not been consistently followed by councils and there is the opportunity for the NPSUDC to formalise it.

 


Objectives and policies group D: Responsive planning

The council agrees that planning should be responsive to growth. The council’s comments and suggestions on the individual objectives and policies are below.

 

Objectives and policies group D: Responsive planning

 

 

Council Position

Objective D1: To ensure that planning decisions enable urban development in the short, medium and long-terms.

The council agrees that coordination and integration within and between local authorities and infrastructure providers is necessary.   

Objective D2: To ensure that in the short and medium terms local authorities adapt and respond to market activity.

The council recommends the objective remove ‘short- term’.

Policy D1: When the evidence base or monitoring obtained in accordance with policies PB1 to PB5 indicates that development capacity is not sufficient in any of the short, medium or long terms, local authorities must respond by providing further development capacity in accordance with policies PD2 and PD3 as soon as possible.

The council recommends that ‘short- term’ be removed from PD1 to be consistent with PD6.

Policy D2: A local authority must consider all options available to it under the Act to enable sufficient development capacity to meet residential and business demand, including but not limited to:

·      Changes to plans and regional policy statements, including changes to:

o    Objectives, policies and rules, zoning and the application of those in both existing urban and undeveloped areas;

o    Activity status;

o    Provisions about the notification of applications for resource consent;

o    Existing overlays, or the introduction of overlays which enable

o    development; and

o    Make them simpler to interpret.

·         Consenting processes that are customer-focused and coordinated within the local authority; and

·         In granting consent, the conditions of consent imposed

 

The council agrees that local authorities must consider all options available. The council disagrees that the NPSUDC should prescribe, to an unnecessary level of detail, what those options are. The council recommends that the options be limited to ‘changing plans and regional policy including the objectives, policies and rules and the application of those’ or that all of these options be transferred to the guidance notes. The council notes that the response rests with local government.

 

The options within the proposed NPSUDC are too detailed and/or duplicative. For instance, ‘activity statuses’ are captured by the covering statement ‘objectives, policies and rules, zoning’. The council’s preference is for this policy to include the suggestions in the guidance notes.

 

 

Policy D3: Local authorities must consider the following responses:

·         In the short term, further enable development through customer-focused consenting processes and, where appropriate, amending the relevant plans.

·         In the medium term, amending the relevant plans and policy statements to provide more development capacity.

·         In the long term, providing a broad indication of the location, timing and

·         sequencing of development capacity in order to demonstrate that it will be sufficient.

 

The council notes the potential land inflationary effect of implementing the proposed long-term responses.

 

Indicating where future development may occur is positive and necessary for infrastructure providers. However, it may provide any owner, and therefore potential seller of land, an advantageous position to profit from. This will have an effect on land prices.

 

Policy D4: In giving effect to policy PD1 with respect to residential development capacity local authorities should have particular regard to enabling capacity:

·       In the locations that the Housing Assessment, required under policy PB1,indicates are of highest demand; and

·       That is feasible.

 

such that it maximises the contribution to meeting demand for residential development.

Local authorities that have a Medium Growth or High Growth Urban Area within their jurisdiction should not restrict their responses to meeting demand to only the area that lies within the Medium Growth Urban Area or High Growth Urban Area.

Policies PD5 to PD9 apply to all local authorities that have part, or all, of a High Growth Urban Area within their jurisdiction.

Regional councils must have amended their proposed and operative regional policy statement to give effect to policies PD5 to PD6 by:

·         The end of 2018; or

·         Earlier if the Housing Assessment required under policy PB1 shows development capacity is insufficient to meet demand; or

·         Within 12 months of becoming a High Growth Urban Area.

Regional councils must amend their proposed and operative regional policy statements to give effect to policies PD5 to PD6 in accordance with section 55(2A) of the Act without using the process in Schedule 1 of the Act.

 

The council agrees with this objective.

 

Policy D5: Regional councils must set minimum targets for the supply of sufficient residential development capacity that must be achieved, in accordance with its Housing Assessment, and incorporate these into the relevant regional policy statement. These minimum targets must specify:

·         The total number of dwellings; and

·         Different types of dwellings.

To take account of the likelihood that not all capacity will be developed, it must require an additional margin of at least:

·       20% over and above projected short and medium-term demand; and

·       15% over and above projected long-term demand.

 

The council agrees in principle with this objective however a number of issues need to be resolved. These are outlined below.

 

The council is comfortable with the inclusion of residential targets however more work to consider the costs and benefits of specifying dwelling types is required. The council’s proposed zoning framework is to enable a range of possible built typologies between and within zones. It may be more appropriate to specify the ‘zones to provide for the total number’, rather than types per se. 

 

Secondly, the policy should also be amended to clarify that any margin, in this case 20 per cent over the short-term is not required as PD6 focuses on the medium and long-term only.

 

Thirdly, the council notes that business land and space is excluded from PDs 5-9. The provision of well-located business land and floorspace is essential in creating an urban form that achieves the goals of PA1. Consideration to expanding PD5 to the business assessment is necessary.

Policy D6: A regional council’s minimum targets set under policy PD5 must be set for the medium and long terms, and must be reviewed every three years. When a regional council’s Housing Assessment required under policy PB1 shows that the minimum targets set in the regional policy statement are insufficient to meet demand, regional councils must revise those minimum targets in accordance with policy PD5 and incorporate those targets into its regional policy statement in accordance with section 55(2A) of the Act without using the process in Schedule 1 of the Act. Local authorities shall give effect to policies PD7 to PD9 within the following timeframes:

·       By the end of 2018; or

·       Within 12 months of becoming a High Growth Urban Area.

 

The council recommends more thought be given to this policy.

 

This policy requires changes to targets at the regional policy statement level. It does not require changes to plans at the district level. Such changes are assumed as implied in PD2 and PD3. However, changes at the district level currently have to proceed through the RMA’s Schedule 1 process which can take considerable time and effort. Consideration of a fast-track process at the district plan level should occur as this would help a faster supply-side response. 

 

The need to respond to the long-term based on three yearly assessments highlights a significant tension with the proposed NPS. A balance must be struck between providing certainty over the short, medium and long term combined with a need to have flexibility in planning for and investing in infrastructure. 

Policy D7: Local authorities must provide a future land release and intensification strategy alongside the relevant plans and regional policy statements to demonstrate that there will be sufficient development capacity in the medium and long terms, and that minimum targets will be met.

 

 

 

 

The council recommends that the objective be reworded to ‘local authorities produce a land supply and intensification strategy’.

                                                   

Local authorities do not necessarily release land for development. Release can and does occur through private plan changes.   

 

 

 

Policy D8: The future land release and intensification strategy must:

·         Identify the location, timing and sequencing of future development capacity over the long term; and

·         Provide a process for flexible implementation.

 

The council notes that this policy overlaps with the need for the council to develop a Spatial Plan. The council recommends careful consideration be given to the idea of ‘flexible implementation’ and that this be thoroughly traversed in developing the guidance.

 

Policy D9: In developing this strategy, local authorities must:

·         Be informed by the Housing Assessment and Business Land Assessment required under policy PB1;

·         Take into account the views of infrastructure providers, land owners, the property development sector and any other stakeholders as they see fit; and

·         Have particular regard to policy PA1.

 

The council agrees in principle with this objective. The council suggests the policy could be reworded under the second bullet point to state “Consider the views, supported by evidence from … “. Robust evidence underpins many of the objectives in the proposed NPSUDC which should apply to all stakeholders implementing PDs 5 – 9.


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

Port Future Study

 

File No.: CP2016/13651

 

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is to:

i.        present the recommendations of the Port Future Study Consensus Working Group on the long-term strategy to accommodate Auckland’s demand for sea-based freight and cruise

ii.       table the report of the Consensus Working Group

iii.      table the supporting report by the consortium of consultants, prepared for the Consensus Working Group.

2.       This report also serves as background for Dr. Rick Boven, the Independent Chair of the Study, to give a verbal report on the process and its output, as well as answer questions Committee members may have.

3.       The report further provides a documented overview of the Port Future Study process over the past year.

Executive summary

4.       The Port Future Study was initiated in May 2015 as an independent Māori and stakeholder collaborative process with the objective of making recommendations for a long-term strategy for the provision of facilities to accommodate Auckland’s demand for sea-based freight and cruise.

5.       A Consensus Working Group and wider Reference Group were set up to achieve this purpose. Both groups were led by an Independent Chair, Dr. Rick Boven.

6.       The Consensus Working Group completed its task and submits a recommendation report (Attachment A ) and appended consultants’ report (Attachments B and C) for the Committee’s consideration. The Consensus Working Group makes four recommendations to be read and received as a package, along with the Group’s notes and findings.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      receive a verbal report from Dr. Rick Boven, Independent Chair for the Port Future Study;

b)      thank the members of the Consensus Working Group, Reference Group and Independent Chair for their time and valued contribution to the Study;

c)      receive the Consensus Working Group report and the supporting consultants’ report to the Port Future Study and;

d)      receive the following recommendations and accompanying notes from the Consensus Working Group, offered as an integrated package:

i.        A port relocation option is established for freight, noting:

·   If the port is moved, then cruise ships should continue to be accommodated near the CBD

ii.       Comprehensive investigation of the identified location area options - Manukau Harbour and the Firth of Thames - is undertaken to decide which specific option is chosen, noting:

1.      Investigation to identify the specific relocation option should include consideration of at least:

 

-   The long term engineering requirements, navigability, safety and availability of the Manukau and Firth of Thames options

-   The effect of a west coast versus east coast location on shipping and the competitiveness of the Auckland port and the national supply chain

-   The wider and long term implications of west coast versus east coast locations including on Auckland’s long term transport strategy, land use development, land-side freight routes and the potential for a super-port

-   Mana whenua values, views and opportunities for each of the potential sites identified

-   The environmental impacts of the new site and analysis of consenting pathways

-   How and when any new port could be funded.

 

iii.      Regular monitoring of relocation triggers is undertaken to identify the time at which the port relocation option should be exercised, noting:

·   The port may move when the social, environmental, cultural, economic, urban development or other conditions indicate that moving the port is beneficial for the city centre, or Auckland or New Zealand

·   The port may move when expected demand growth, expected capacity growth and the time required to complete the move indicate that moving the port has become necessary

·   It is possible that Auckland’s future unfolds in a way that neither of the triggers for the beneficial or necessary cases will be “pulled”, which would mean that the port would accommodate long term demand at the current site.

iv.      Subject to confirmed and credible commitment to establishing a port relocation option and to establishing sufficient additional berth length to accommodate expected growth in large cruise and multi-cargo vessels, the port should not expand beyond its current footprint, noting:

·   The work done so far for the Central Wharves Strategy implies the need for additional cruise berths and the Consultant’s report endorses POAL’s case that additional long berths are required to accommodate expected short and medium term growth in cruise and multi-cargo operations

·   The Consultant has recommended a northern east-west berth at Bledisloe Wharf and the CWG is in agreement that a northern berth presents a viable short term option. Exact specifications to meet future berth demand will be worked through

·   The CWG recognises mana whenua and community opposition to any further extension of port operations into the harbour and that deciding the plan to provide the required berth capacity will require rigorous identification and evaluation of alternative options

·   The Port Future Study is a study to provide a long term strategy for the location of the port and there are established processes for short term berth provision decisions.

 

The Consensus Working Group notes that, adopting some recommendations while not implementing others, is likely to lead to adverse unintended consequences.

EITHER

 

 

 

 

Option one

e)      refer the Consensus Working Group recommendations and report, and the supporting consultants’ report, to the incoming council.

OR

Option two

e)      refer the Consensus Working Group recommendations and report, and the supporting consultants’ report, to the incoming council.

f)       request the Chief Executive to consider the Consensus Working Group’s recommendations and report, as well as the supporting consultants’ report, and to refer to the incoming council:

i)        a process to investigate location options identified in the Consensus Working Group and consultants’ reports in the Manukau Harbour and Firth of Thames, and

ii)       a scope, based on the matters included in the Consensus Working Group and consultants’ reports, for identifying and monitoring ‘relocation triggers’ on an on-going basis to inform the execution of the relocation option.

 

Comments

Background: Project and Auckland Development Committee considerations

7.       On 1 April 2015 the Auckland Development Committee resolved to commence the Port Future Study. Consistent with the Committee’s subsequent resolution on 14 May 2015, a collaborative Māori and stakeholder process was established to investigate the long-term future of Auckland’s port. A Consensus Working Group (CWG) and wider Reference Group were vehicles established for this process. An Independent Chair of both groups was appointed by the Governing Body in May 2015. The Committee set a date of mid-2016 for the delivery of recommendations to the council.

8.       It is to be noted that:

i.        The Port Future Study did not include elected representative or officer membership.

ii.       The Study has not and does not purport to have formally consulted any stakeholders or mana whenua iwi. It did however aim to develop a consensus recommendation to the council from amongst a wide range of mana whenua iwi and stakeholders.

9.       The objective of the Port Future Study and a provisional list of stakeholder organisations were endorsed by the Committee at its 14 May 2015 meeting.

10.     The objective of the Study was ‘to provide Auckland Council, as the port company’s owner, with recommendations about a long-term strategy for the provision of facilities to accommodate sea-based imports and exports (and the cruise industry) flowing to and from Auckland’.

11.     The design proposal, as endorsed by the Committee in May 2015, enabled the CWG to consider and finalise the objective and scope of the Study. The Independent Chair reported an adjusted objective and scope in September 2015, which was endorsed by the Committee. The objective for the Study authored by the CWG reads:

“The Port Future Study’s objective is to recommend a long-term strategy for the provision of facilities to accommodate sea-based imports and exports and the cruise industry flowing to and from Auckland and its wider region in an economically, socially, culturally and environmentally acceptable manner, taking into account competing uses for city centre waterfront space and the various impacts of options.”


12.     The Independent Chair gave verbal updates to the Committee on two occasions during the Study:

i.        15 October 2015: the Committee endorsed the CWG-authored objective and scope.

ii.       14 April 2016: updated the Committee on the appointment of the Ernst & Young (EY) led consortium, and progress on shortlisting of options using the CWG-authored scope.

13.     In the course of the study, council support staff provided advisory memos to Committee members and Local Board Chairs whenever the Independent Chair issued a media statement on behalf of the Study, ahead of the information being released.

14.     Around April 2015, while discussions on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan were underway, in a separate and unrelated process, a planned extension of Bledisloe Wharf was met with community opposition. This eventually resulted in a High Court decision in June 2015 to overturn consent for the extension (generally known as ‘B2’ and ‘B3’). To a large degree, this led to the study to look into the long-term future of the port being brought forward (from the original intent to initiate such a study following the Unitary Plan process).

15.     The Port Future Study was designed as a process to make recommendations for a long-term strategy for the future of port facilities to accommodate Auckland’s sea-based trade. It does not, nor was its purpose to make decisions on shorter-term processes governing the land-use activities within the port precinct, or to direct the port company in any way.

16.     The Independent Hearings Panel will make its recommendations to Auckland Council as part of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan process on 22 July 2016. In due course, council will make PAUP decisions as they relate to Independent Hearings Panel recommendations on the port precinct. The Port Future Study recommendations did not serve as evidence to the Independent Hearings Panel, can therefore not be taken into account by the Panel, and can thus not be considered in council’s decisions on the PAUP.

Independent Chair

17.     Dr. Rick Boven was appointed to the role of Independent Chair at the 28 May 2015 meeting of the Governing Body. Dr. Boven chaired both the CWG meetings and the meetings of the Reference Group.

18.     In his role as Independent Chair, Dr. Boven:

i.        facilitated all meetings of the CWG and Reference Group, aimed to provide all necessary information and sought to address the needs and requests of CWG members

ii.       liaised with the consultants and engaged peer reviewers on aspects of the consultants’ outputs

iii.      undertook efforts to create a collaborative and consensus-enabling environment for the members of the CWG and Reference Group

iv.      issued media statements and fielded media enquiries on behalf of the Study

v.       liaised with council support staff.

19.     Dr. Boven provided verbal progress reports to the Auckland Development Committee on 15 October 2015 and 14 April 2016.

Consensus Working Group

20.     A 16-member Consensus Working Group was established comprising four mana whenua representatives, 11 representatives from stakeholder organisations and the CEO of Ports of Auckland Ltd.

21.     The CWG produced a report detailing its recommendations, appended as Attachment A to this report.


22.     The CWG met on 22 occasions throughout the Study. Meetings were generally 5 hours long and commonly occurred at fortnightly intervals. CWG members worked together to build their understanding of the complexities inherent in this issue. Their efforts represent a considerable contribution to the long-term future of Auckland’s port. The group:

i.        co-authored the objective and scope of the Study

ii.       a sub-group of the CWG appointed the consultants with technical assistance from council’s procurement team

iii.      engaged with the consultants, reviewed their output and gave critique and direction

iv.      gave presentations to one another on the views and perspectives of different stakeholders

v.       invited presentations from external organisations (NZTA, KiwiRail, Auckland Transport, Auckland Tourism Events & Economic Development, Auckland Design Office, City Centre Integration Group, Panuku Development Auckland and Martyn Evans Architects)

vi.      shared outputs with the Reference Group and considered its feedback, and

vii.     authored recommendations for a long-term strategy.

23.     Two separate processes were run in parallel to select the members of the CWG that reflect both mana whenua and stakeholder organisations that have a relationship or link with the port and its wider impacts on Auckland.

i.        Eighty five organisations were invited to a stakeholder plenary session on 9 July 2015. At this facilitated session, 64 attendees self-selected 11 representatives. Attendees who were not selected then became the Reference Group. The CWG members were intended to represent both their own organisation and those of other organisations within the Reference Group.

ii.       The chairs of mana whenua iwi organisations of Ngāti Whātua, Marutūahu, Waiohua-Tāmaki Alliance and Waikato-Tainui were invited to a hui with the Mayor on 14 July 2015. At the hui, mana whenua undertook to select a representative from each of these groupings. Four members were appointed via this process. All mana whenua iwi organisations were invited to put representatives forward to the Reference Group.

24.     The members of the CWG are detailed below:

Stakeholder representatives

Michael Barnett                                     Auckland Chamber of Commerce

Luke Christensen                     Generation Zero

Noel Coom                                International Container Lines Committee

Richard Didsbury                      Committee for Auckland

Jenni Goulding                          Independent (Parnell Community)

Rangimarie Hunia                     Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei Whai Rawa

Alan McDonald                                      Employers and Manufacturers Association

Greg McKeown                                     Independent

Julie Stout                                              Urban Auckland

Shane Vuletich                                      Society for the Protection of Auckland Harbours

Annabel Young                                      NZ Shipping Federation

 

Mana whenua iwi representatives

Ngarimu Blair                           Ngāti Whātua iwi group

Nathan Kennedy                                   Marutūahu iwi group

Maxine Moana-Tuwhangai       Waikato-Tainui iwi group

Karen Wilson                             Waiohua-Tāmaki Alliance iwi group

 

Port company representative

Tony Gibson                              POAL


Reference Group

25.     The Reference Group comprised the 81 organisations invited to the 9 July plenary and representatives from mana whenua iwi groups. The Reference Group came to be both the 64 individuals representing the 46 organisations who responded to the invitation and 14 mana whenua organisations. A small number of representatives were added to the group as the Study progressed, bringing the total number of Reference Group members to 79

26.     The Reference Group met with the CWG and Independent Chair on four occasions throughout the study on the following dates:

i.        30 September 2015: the CWG shared and received feedback on its Study scope.

ii.       19 February 2016: the CWG introduced their appointed consultants and shared and received feedback on the long-list of location options produced by the consultants’ methodology.

iii.      13 April 2016: the CWG shared and received feedback on the shortlist of location options.

iv.      15 June 2016: the CWG shared and received feedback on its emerging recommendations.

27.     Reference Group meetings were 2-3 hours in length and those in attendance generally represented around 40% of all members. All Reference Group members received communications throughout the Study, outlining pre-reading for upcoming Reference Group meetings and were provided with media releases issued by the Independent Chair.

Mana whenua representation on the Study

28.     The port sits within an environmental, cultural, social and economic context with impacts on the wellbeing of all Aucklanders. Mana whenua have a longstanding relationship with the port at its current location on the Waitematā as a taonga and source of identity.

29.     Mana whenua participated in the Port Future Study as members of the CWG and Reference Group as detailed above. Mana whenua CWG members also identified mana whenua iwi representatives to be contacted in a ‘mana whenua discovery process’ as part of the consultants’ methodology. Interviews were held with iwi representatives on the impact of the proposed long-term strategy options being developed. Where appropriate, the content of those interviews has been reflected in the consultants’ report.

30.     Ngāti Whātua, Waiohua-Tāmaki, Marutūahu and Waikato-Tainui iwi chairs were invited to a hui with the Mayor on 14 July 2015. At the hui, iwi chairs offered a method of representation on both the study’s Consensus Working Group and Reference Group that would follow the groupings of Ngāti Whātua, the Waiohua-Tāmaki Alliance, Marutūahu and Waikato-Tainui.

31.     Four Consensus Working Group members were elected from within these groups, by these groups:

·    Ngarimu Blair                                  Ngāti Whātua iwi group

·    Nathan Kennedy                             Marutūahu iwi group

·    Maxine Moana-Tuwhangai             Waikato-Tainui iwi group

·    Karen Wilson                                   Waiohua-Tāmaki Alliance iwi group

Consultants

32.     The CWG went to market in September 2015 with an open tender to deliver the scope of the Study. A consortium of consultants led by EY was selected through a two-stage process by an assessment panel, made up of a sub-group of the CWG. The consultants were selected for their three stage methodology which gave effect to the scope by broadly outlining a long list of options for a long-term strategy, including new location options, and narrowing quickly to a more detailed assessment of a short list.

33.     The EY-led consortium began its work in November 2015 and attended most meetings of the CWG up until mid-April 2016, after which the CWG proceeded to formulate its own recommendations.

34.     A draft report was delivered on 30 April 2016 to the CWG and a final report completed on 22 June 2016. The consultants’ report to the CWG is appended as Attachment B. The appendix to the consultants’ report to the CWG is appended as Attachment C.

35.     During the work of the EY-led consortium, the CWG engaged three peer review experts. The outputs of those peer reviews were addressed by the consultants and, where appropriate, changes incorporated into the final report delivered by EY. The peer reviewers were:

i.        Tim Denne, Resource Economics (NZ), review and comment on Cost-Benefit Analysis methodology

ii.       Dennis Kögeböhn, Hamburg Port Consulting GmbH (DE), review and comment on volume and capacity modelling methodology

iii.      Richard Reinen-Hamill, Tonkin + Taylor (NZ), review and comment on navigability of Manukau Harbour analysis.

Port Future Study methodology

36.     The CWG and consultants’ reports describe the methodology of the Port Future Study in detail. Broadly, the CWG used three types of inputs in its consideration and development of recommendations. These were:

i.        the work of the CWG itself, including meetings and deliberations,

ii.       the feedback the CWG received from the Study’s Reference Group, and

iii.      the interim and final reports prepared by the EY-led consortium and peer reviews.

 


 

37.     These inputs are presented in the diagram below:

 

Recommendations of the Consensus Working Group

38.     The recommendations of the CWG are made in the context of three key issues identified by the CWG and a number of key findings. The three issues agreed by the CWG as foundations for the Port Future Study were:

i.        Capacity will constrain the port’s ability to meet future freight and cruise demands, which may limit economic growth in the long term

ii.       Tension between, and competition for, limited resources for the CBD and POAL will lead to sub-optimal outcomes for one or both

iii.      Port activities create environmental, economic, social and cultural impacts which need to be understood and addressed.

39.     The key findings are:

In considering the options; 1) constrain the port, 2) downsize the port, 3) relocate trade volume, 4) grow the port, 5) build a new port, the CWG key findings reached by consensus are:

A.         Based on EY’s findings, the existing Port will not be able to accommodate the long term freight task and cruise on the current footprint.

B.         That no further reclamation beyond what is already consented in the port precinct is required for freight purposes in the short to medium term.

C.         There is a need to secure sufficient berth length in the multi-cargo area for the short to medium term.

D.         Short term pathways need to be created to enable the Port to continue to operate efficiently prior to a planned new Port being established due to the substantial lead times involved. In this regard, the CWG identifies that additional berth length needs to be provided to fulfil the short and medium term capacity requirements of the Port in response to cruise and multi-cargo requirements.

E.         Retaining the bulk of port functions provides a more feasible and superior outcome for Auckland, rather than shedding cargo elsewhere or downsizing Auckland’s freight task, in the short to medium term. Shedding or downsizing freight operations may weaken the case for moving the port.

F.          In the long term, other existing North Island ports will be unable to cope with the totality of the Auckland freight task together with their own capacity requirements.

G.         Cruise industry facilities should be retained and improved in Auckland’s city centre

H.         Two possible new port locations - Manukau Harbour and Firth of Thames - have been identified as warranting more detailed investigation.

I.           The triggers for a move would comprise economic, social, environmental and cultural triggers that make a move beneficial or demand/economic triggers that make a move necessary to achieve long term outcomes for Auckland.

40.     Based on these findings, the CWG makes its recommendations to council. Note that the CWG further states that its recommendations “are offered as an integrated package. Adopting some recommendations while not implementing others is likely to lead to adverse unintended consequences”.

41.     The CWG recommends that:

i.        A port relocation option is established for freight, noting:

a.      If the port is moved, then cruise ships should continue to be accommodated near the CBD

ii.       Comprehensive investigation of the identified location area options - Manukau Harbour and the Firth of Thames - is undertaken to decide which specific option is chosen, noting:

·    Investigation to identify the specific relocation option should include consideration of at least:

-     The long term engineering requirements, navigability, safety and availability of the Manukau and Firth of Thames options

-     The effect of a west coast versus east coast location on shipping and the competitiveness of the Auckland port and the national supply chain

-     The wider and long term implications of west coast versus east coast locations including on Auckland’s long term transport strategy, land use development, land-side freight routes and the potential for a super-port

-     Mana whenua values, views and opportunities for each of the potential sites identified

-     The environmental impacts of the new site and analysis of consenting pathways

-     How and when any new port could be funded.

 

iii.      Regular monitoring of relocation triggers is undertaken to identify the time at which the port relocation option should be exercised, noting:

·    The port may move when the social, environmental, cultural, economic, urban development or other conditions indicate that moving the port is beneficial for the city centre, or Auckland or New Zealand

·    The port may move when expected demand growth, expected capacity growth and the time required to complete the move indicate that moving the port has become necessary

·    It is possible that Auckland’s future unfolds in a way that neither of the triggers for the beneficial or necessary cases will be “pulled”, which would mean that the port would accommodate long term demand at the current site.

iv.      Subject to confirmed and credible commitment to establishing a port relocation option and to establishing sufficient additional berth length to accommodate expected growth in large cruise and multi-cargo vessels, the port should not expand beyond its current footprint, noting:

·    The work done so far for the Central Wharves Strategy implies the need for additional cruise berths and the Consultant’s report endorses POAL’s case that additional long berths are required to accommodate expected short and medium term growth in cruise and multi-cargo operations

·    The Consultant has recommended a northern east-west berth at Bledisloe Wharf and the CWG is in agreement that a northern berth presents a viable short term option. Exact specifications to meet future berth demand will be worked through.

·    The CWG recognises mana whenua and community opposition to any further extension of port operations into the harbour and that deciding the plan to provide the required berth capacity will require rigorous identification and evaluation of alternative options

·    The Port Future Study is a study to provide a long term strategy for the location of the port and there are established processes for short term berth provision decisions.

Budget

42.     When initiating the Port Future Study in May 2015, the Auckland Development Committee approved a budget of $1,043,000 - $1,143,000, noting that funding will come from the Mayoral Office budget. The project comes in on time with a likely total budget spend of approximately $1,057,000.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

43.     The views of Local Boards have not specifically been taken into account for the purposes of this report, other than the extent to which they were accounted for in previous Committee resolutions.

44.     The Port Future Study was without elected member or officer representation.

45.     The project team gave a briefing about the Study at the Local Board Chairs Forum on 22 June 2015. Local Board Chairs received memos with relevant information at the same time as Committee members.

Māori impact statement

46.     The Waitematā and Manukau Harbours are seen as gateways into Auckland by the Ngāti Whātua, Waiohua-Tāmaki, Marutūahu and Waikato-Tainui tribes.

47.     The first elements of Auckland’s port as we see it today were established in the mid-to-late 1800’s; however Tāmaki harbours had been plied by waka for many years before that.  The confluence of people and trade in the area led to it also being known as Tāmaki Herenga Waka: Tāmaki the gatherer of many canoes.

48.     The Waitematā port, operations and externalities sit within a cultural, economic, environmental and social context for Māori; due in particular to the interrelationship of the port and the Waitematā Harbour which is a taonga and source of identify for Māori as well as a source of economic and social well-being.

49.     The Port Future Study was a study only and is not thought of as having formally consulted any organisation or mana whenua iwi. The work done for this Study has not provided mana whenua with occasion to engage with recommended locational or strategic options at sufficient detail and opportunities to do so must be incorporated into future processes.

50.     In noting the recommendations made by the CWG, this Māori Impact Statement notes that the Manukau Harbour and Firth of Thames areas identified have cultural significance for Māori. Land at Waimango point in particular is noted as held in Māori title.

51.     The Port Future Study report does not make nor requires the Committee to make decisions on a long-term strategy. Potential future decisions for a long-term strategy for the provision of port facilities to meet Auckland’s long-term needs will have many and varied economic, cultural, environmental and cultural impacts on Māori with implications for mana whenua iwi and on relationships of kaitiakitanga, ownership and co-governance.

52.     Council has made key commitments to Māori through the Auckland Plan, Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, Long Term Plan and the Māori Responsiveness Framework. These need to be taken into account and provided for in council’s consideration of:

i.        The recommendations for a long-term strategy to accommodate Auckland’s trade and cruise demand made by the CWG of the Port Future Study

ii.       The economic, social, cultural and environmental impacts of new and proposed port activity on whanau and Māori industry

iii.      How to recognise and protect Māori rights and interests and how to address and contribute to Māori needs and aspirations in future processes

iv.      Treaty Settlements, including the pending Waitematā Harbour settlements.

53.     The methodology of the Port Future Study adopted included a ‘mana whenua discovery process’:

54.     EY Tahi (a member of the consortium of consultants) conducted interviews with members of mana whenua iwi groups at the suggestion of mana whenua CWG members. The interview process and desktop research of EY Tahi contributed to the final consultants’ report content.

55.     Mana whenua CWG members consistently voiced concerns throughout the project that mātauranga Māori (a Māori world view or lens) be incorporated into the methodology used by the consultants to narrow options. The discovery process was met with varying levels of comfort by mana whenua CWG members (and all CWG members) and efforts have been made by mana whenua members to improve content in the report of the consultants to varying degrees of satisfaction.

Implementation

56.     The Port Future Study was a one-off project for completion in mid-2016. Upon receiving the recommendations of the CWG, the project is completed and there is no implementation in terms of the scope of the project.

57.     Should the recommendations of the CWG be adopted, and should the ‘trigger/s’ for relocation be reached, the Study itself is the foundation and first phase in what is likely to be a long-term undertaking. Numerous decisions need to be made along the way and much work needs to be undertaken or commissioned.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Port Future Study:  Consensus Working Group Recommendations report - July 2016 (Under Separate Cover)

 

bView

Consultants' report to the Port Future Study - July 2016 (Under Separate Cover)

 

cView

Appendix to the Consultants' report to the Port Future Study - July 2016 (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Signatories

Author

Toby Shephard – Strategic Advisor - Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Authorisers

Jacques  Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

      

 


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

 

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a)      exclude the public from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution follows.

This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public, as follows:

 

C1       Tāmaki Regeneration Project and Governance Report

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(b)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.

In particular, the report contains information of a procurement process. Releasing this information would prejudice the commercial position of Panuku Development Auckland or Auckland Council.

s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

In particular, the report contains information of a procurement process. Releasing this information would prejudice the commercial position of Panuku Development Auckland or Auckland Council.

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

 

 


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

Item 6.1      Attachment a    Liston Village Urban design Asessment and Concept Plans                                                                       Page 183

Item 6.1      Attachment b    Liston Village - Landscape and Visual Asessment  Page 205



Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Auckland Development Committee

06 July 2016

 

PDF Creator 



[1] Resource Legislation Amendment Bill, New Zealand Parliament. http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/legislation/bills/00DBHOH_BILL67856_1/resource-legislation-amendment-bill

[2] Productivity Commission, Better Urban Planning inquiry. http://www.productivity.govt.nz/inquiry-content/2682?stage=2

[3]Auckland Plan.  http://theplan.theaucklandplan.govt.nz/

[4]  Auckland Council Long-term Plan 2015-2025, Volume 2 of 3. http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/aboutcouncil/planspoliciespublications/ltp2015volume2.pdf

[5] Auckland Council submission, Productivity Commission Using Land for Housing draft report, August 2015. http://www.productivity.govt.nz/sites/default/files/sub-land-for-housing-135-auckland-council-6612Kb.pdf

[6] Auckland Council Submission to New Zealand Productivity Commission Issues Paper – Better Urban Planning March 2016. http://www.productivity.govt.nz/sites/default/files/sub-urban-planning-47-auckland-council-248Kb.pdf

[7] Consulting the community about local authorities’ 10-year plans, Office of the Auditor General, 2015. http://www.oag.govt.nz/2015/ltp-consultation-documents/part4.htm

[8] The council notes  that there is the potential for private developers to provide bulk infrastructure if they wish to develop land out of sequence with Council/government infrastructure planning e.g. Private developers have constructed the Wainui ramps on SH1 to facilitate their development.