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

 

Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Tuesday, 29 November 2016

9.30am

Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

 

Planning Committee

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Cr Chris Darby

 

Deputy Chairperson

Cr Denise Lee

 

Members

Cr Dr Cathy Casey

Cr Daniel Newman, JP

 

Deputy Mayor Bill Cashmore

IMSB Member Liane Ngamane

 

Cr Ross Clow

Cr Dick Quax

 

Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins

Cr Greg Sayers

 

Cr Linda Cooper, JP

Cr Desley Simpson, JP

 

Cr Alf Filipaina

Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM

 

Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO

Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE

 

Mayor Hon Phil Goff, JP

Cr Wayne Walker

 

IMSB Member Hon Tau Henare

Cr John Watson

 

Cr Richard Hills

 

 

Cr Penny Hulse

 

 

Cr Mike Lee

 

 

(Quorum 11 members)

 

 

 

Elaine Stephenson

Senior Governance Advisor

 

24 November 2016

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8117

Email: elaine.stephenson@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 


 

TERMS OF REFERENCE

 

Responsibilities

 

This committee guides 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:

 

·         Relevant regional strategy and policy

·         Infrastructure strategy and policy

·         Unitary Plan

·         Spatial plans

·         Plan changes to operative plans

·         Housing policy and projects

·         Special Housing Areas

·         City centre development

·         Tamaki regeneration

·         Built heritage

·         Urban design

·         Environmental matters relating to the committee’s responsibilities

·         Acquisition of property relating to the committee’s responsibilities and within approved annual budgets

 

o   Panuku Development Auckland

 

o   Auckland Transport

 

o   Watercare Services Limited

 

Powers

 

(i)      All powers necessary to perform the committee’s responsibilities, including:

(a) approval of a submission to an external body

(b) establishment of working parties or steering groups.

(ii)      The committee has the powers to perform the responsibilities of another committee, where it is necessary to make a decision prior to the next meeting of that other committee.

(iii)     The committee does not have:

(a) the power to establish subcommittees

(b) powers that the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (section 2).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 


Planning Committee

29 November 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

7          Extraordinary Business                                                                                                7

8          Notices of Motion                                                                                                          8

9          Planning Committee 2016-2019                                                                                    9

10        Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan – Appeal of KiwiRail Designation 6303 for the Avondale to Southdown Railway Line                                                                                       11

11        Auckland Unitary Plan – Update on Appeals and Delegations for Urgent Decisions 15

12        East West Link Project - political reference group and delegations                     19

13        Northern Corridor Improvements Project - political reference group and delegations                                                                                                                                       27

14        Submission on the Regulatory Systems (Building and Housing) Amendment Bill     37

15        Auckland Housing Accord Extension                                                                       47

16        Auckland Plan Refresh - proposed approach                                                          61

17        Roading Exchange Policy                                                                                           65

18        Summary of Planning Committee information memos and briefings - 29 November 2016                                                                                                                                       75  

19        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

 

 


1          Apologies

 

An apology from Cr E Collins has been received.

 

 

2          Declaration of Interest

 

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

 

 

3          Confirmation of Minutes

 

There are no minutes for confirmation.

 

 

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.

 

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

 


 

7          Extraordinary Business

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

8          Notices of Motion

 

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

 


Planning Committee

29 November 2016

 

Planning Committee 2016-2019

 

File No.: CP2016/23689

 

Purpose

1.       For the Chair to introduce the scope of work of the Planning Committee for the 2016-2019 term.

Executive summary

2.       This is an opportunity for the Chair to present an oral or written report. A written report was not available when the agenda went to print.

Recommendation/s

The recommendations will be provided in the comprehensive report if relevant.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Signatories

Author

Megan Tyler - Executive Officer CPO

Authoriser

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

29 November 2016

 

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan – Appeal of KiwiRail Designation 6303 for the Avondale to Southdown Railway Line

 

File No.: CP2016/23303

 

Purpose

1.       To seek approval from the Planning Committee to lodge an Environment Court appeal against the decision by KiwiRail Holdings Limited (KiwiRail) to reject (in part) the council’s recommendations on Designation 6303 in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. Designation 6303 relates to the Avondale to Southdown Railway Line.

Executive summary

2.       KiwiRail Designation 6303 relates to the Avondale to Southdown Railway Line. Designation 6303 was considered as part of the hearings on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. In relation to Designation 6303, the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel (the Panel) recommended:

·    mapping changes sought by KiwiRail to increase the extent of the designation; and

·    the deletion of four existing conditions and imposition of nine new conditions on the designation to better manage the adverse effects of the railway line.

The council accepted the Panel’s recommendations.

3.       KiwiRail has recently advised the council of its decision on Designation 6303. KiwiRail’s decision:

·    accepted the mapping changes to increase the extent of the designation; and

·    rejected the council’s recommendation (in part) by reinstating the four original conditions and deleting the nine new conditions.

4.       After discussing the matter with representatives from Auckland Transport, council staff are concerned that KiwiRail’s replacement conditions do not adequately address the potential adverse effects of the proposed railway line on the safety of the road and rail network, particularly as Designation 6303 has been extended to cover 17 roads along the alignment (including seven arterial roads).

5.       An appeal against the decision by KiwiRail would enable the council to discuss these concerns with KiwiRail, and either reach an agreement in respect of the conditions, or present its case at a hearing before the Environment Court.

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      approve the lodgement of an Environment Court appeal against the decision by KiwiRail Holdings Limited to reject (in part) the council’s recommendations on Designation 6303 (Avondale to Southdown Railway Line) in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

b)      delegate to the General Manager Plans and Places the authority to reach an agreement with KiwiRail Holdings Limited in respect of the appeal, or if necessary, proceed to a hearing before the Environment Court.

 

 

Comments

6.       In August 2016, the council decided to accept the recommendations of the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel in respect of the designations of requiring authorities other than the council, which included KiwiRail Designation 6303 for the Avondale to Southdown Railway Line.  This railway line has not yet been constructed.

7.       The council’s recommendations on Designation 6303:

·      accepted mapping changes sought by KiwiRail to increase the extent of the designation; and

·      deleted four existing conditions and imposed nine new conditions on the designation to better manage the adverse effects of the proposed railway line.

8.       The nine new conditions addressed:

·      construction effects on neighbouring properties;

·      traffic effects including safety, congestion and access to the public road network;

·      noise and vibration effects on neighbouring properties;

·      landscaping effects and the interface with neighbouring properties; and

·      historic heritage effects.

9.       The KiwiRail decision, which was recently received by the council:

·      accepted the mapping changes to increase the extent of the designation;

·      made additional mapping changes to the extent of the designation;

·      rejected the nine new conditions recommended by the council to manage the adverse effects of the railway line; and

·      reinstated the four original conditions of the designation.

10.     Having discussed the matter with representatives from Auckland Transport, council staff are concerned that the four conditions reinstated by KiwiRail do not adequately address the potential adverse effects of the railway line.

11.     A key concern in this respect is KiwiRail’s decision to reject condition 8, which requires:

“Detailed arrangements to ensure that vehicle access along New North Road, Richardson Road, May Road, Dominion Road, Hayr Road, Hillsborough Road, Queenstown Road, Pleasant Street, Symonds Street, Forbes Street, Norman Hill Road, Quadrant Road, Hill Street, Selwyn Street, Onehunga Mall, Galway Street, Spring Street, Victoria Street and Alfred Street will be maintained when construction is completed. This should include arrangements, such as grade separation, to ensure safety wherever the line crosses any public street.”

12.     To address these concerns, council staff recommend lodging an Environment Court appeal against KiwiRail’s decision to reject (in part) the council’s recommendation on Designation 6303. If approved by the Planning Committee, the next steps would be for council staff to:

·    lodge an appeal with the Environment Court; and

·    engage with KiwiRail and Auckland Transport staff to try and resolve the appeal.

If an agreement cannot be reached, then a hearing would be required before the Environment Court.

 

 

Consideration

Local board views and implications

13.     The council’s submission on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan included a section outlining the views of local boards. Local boards did not specifically address the matters discussed in this report. However, it is noted that should it be constructed, the Avondale to Southdown Railway Line would have significant implications for Albert-Eden, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki and Whau Local Board areas. This could include safety and congestion effects on the road network (including seven arterial roads) and effects on neighbouring properties. The recommendation to appeal KiwiRail’s decision in respect of Designation 6303 seeks to adequately address these matters.  

Māori impact statement

18.     The lodgement of an Environment Court appeal in respect of Designation 6303 will not have any specific impacts on Māori.

Implementation

19.     The costs associated with lodging and supporting an appeal before the Environment Court in respect of Designation 6303 can be managed within the existing Plans and Places department budget. There are no other implementation issues.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Authors

Celia Davison - Team Leader Unitary Plan

Jared  Boow - Team Leader Unitary Plan (3)

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

29 November 2016

 

Auckland Unitary Plan – Update on Appeals and Delegations for Urgent Decisions

 

File No.: CP2016/23304

 

Purpose

1.   The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the appeals and judicial review proceedings lodged against the council’s decisions on the Auckland Unitary Plan, and to seek a new delegation for any urgent decisions that may be required from 29 November 2016 onwards.

Executive summary

2.   At its first meeting of the new term of Auckland Council, the Governing body resolved:

“That the Governing Body:

a)   delegate to Cr C Darby, Cr A Filipaina, Cr P Hulse, Cr D Lee and Cr M Lee and a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board, for the period between 1 November and the first meeting of the Planning Committee, the authority to make urgent decisions in respect of any appeal or judicial review proceedings relating to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan and set a quorum of four members required to make decisions”.

3.   As the above delegation expires at the first meeting of the Planning Committee, a new delegation is required for 29 November onwards. It is recommended that the delegation from the Governing Body meeting continues.

4.   The Auckland Unitary Plan became ‘operative in part’ on 15 November 2016. This means that those parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan that are not subject to appeals (both Environment Court and High Court) are now operative, and the corresponding parts of the legacy Regional Plan or District Plan fall away.

5.   The High Court has set aside hearing dates in November, December and February to deal with priority matters.

6.   The Environment Court appeals have been grouped according to topic, and a range management approaches have been identified for each group. The approaches include placing the appeals on hold pending the resolution of judicial reviews or High Court appeals, off line discussions between the parties, Environment Court assisted mediation and a preliminary hearing(s) to address jurisdiction issues.

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)         delegate to Cr C Darby, Cr A Filipaina, Cr P Hulse, Cr D Lee and Cr M Lee and a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board, the authority to make urgent decisions in respect of any current appeal or judicial review proceedings relating to the Auckland Unitary Plan at mediation sessions and hearings held by the High Court and Environment Court. At least four members are required to be in agreement for an urgent decision to be made.

b)         delegate to the General Manager Plans and Places, the authority to confirm the council’s position in respect of technical matters (as opposed to policy matters) at mediation sessions and at the hearings in respect of any current appeal or judicial review proceedings relating to the Auckland Unitary Plan.

 

 

 

 

Comments

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part)

7.         The Auckland Unitary Plan reached a major milestone on 15 November 2016 when it became ‘operative in part’. This means that those parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan that are not subject to appeals (both High Court and Environment Court) are now operative and the corresponding parts of the legacy Regional Plan or District Plan fall away. The Auckland Unitary Plan text and maps (on the council website) are both annotated to show which parts are subject to appeal.

8.         109 appeals have been lodged against the council’s decisions on the Auckland Unitary Plan. 67 appeals have been lodged with the Environment Court and 42 have been lodged with the High Court (raising questions of law).  In addition, eight judicial review applications have been filed in the High Court. A full list and copies of the appeals/judicial reviews are available on the council website.

9.         The majority of the appeals challenge site-specific matters or specific provisions within the Auckland Unitary Plan. Most of the Regional Policy Statement chapter of the Auckland Unitary Plan, the Auckland–wide rules, the majority of the overlays, and the majority of the objectives, policies and rules for the various zones (including open space, rural, business and Special Purpose zones) are now operative.

10.       The parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan that are subject to appeal and which could not be made operative include:

·         discrete objectives and policies in the Regional Policy Statement (associated with urban growth and the Rural Urban Boundary);

·         the Regional Plan Coastal;

·         site specific rules for Significant Ecological Areas, Outstanding Natural Landscapes and the National Grid Corridor;

·         certain subdivision provisions for the rural zones and the Waitakere Ranges Area;

·         provisions relating to air quality standards;

·         the threshold for when resource consent is required in the Mixed Housing Suburban and Mixed Housing Urban zones;

·         certain carparking standards relating to the Metropolitan Centre, Town Centre, Local Centre, Mixed Use, Terrace Housing and Apartment Building zones;

·         and controls relating to retirement villages.

11.       In relation to zoning, while many of the appeals are site-specific, a small number of appeals are far broader and impact development across a much wider area. This includes the joint appeal by Auckland 2040 and the Character Coalition, which challenges the council’s decision to accept the rezoning of certain properties that were notified as being in the Single House or Mixed Housing Suburban zone. The Auckland 2040 and Character Coalition appeal also challenges the Panel’s approach to determining the scope of submissions made on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

Appeals Management/Timeframes

12.       The High Court appeals have been grouped into three categories:

·          Category 1 – appeals benefitting from settlement discussions

·          Category 2 – scope and/or zoning changes

·          Category 3 – issue-specific appeals.

 

 

13.       For the Category 2 proceedings, the High Court has set aside 5 days for the hearing of the priority fixtures dealing with scope, commencing 28 November 2016. The High Court has also set aside 10 days to resolve the Category 3 matters commencing 13 February 2017. Other High Court appeals have been adjourned to a case management conference in December 2016, to enable the parties to discuss possible early resolution of those matters.

14.       The Environment Court appeals have been grouped according to topic (with like appeals grouped together). Some of the Environment Court appeals have corresponding High Court appeals or judicial reviews. The approach applied to the Environment Court appeals varies and includes:

·    placing the appeal on hold pending resolution of judicial reviews and/or High Court appeals;

·    direct discussions between the parties;

·    Environment Court-assisted mediation commencing in early 2017; or

·    a preliminary hearing addressing jurisdiction.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

15.       The 1 November 2016 report to the Governing Body indicated that local board input into the council’s response to the appeals and judicial review proceedings should be considered at the first meeting of the Planning Committee.

16.       During the course of discussions with the appellants and through mediation, it is possible that council staff may form the view that a change should be made to the Auckland Unitary Plan that could be of considerable interest to a particular local board. If this situation arises, the views of the relevant local board chair and planning portfolio representative will be sought, and presented to the Planning Committee (or the delegated members of the Planning Committee). In such cases, it may also be helpful to invite the relevant local board chair to attend the Planning Committee.

Māori impact statement

17.       This report does not have any specific impacts on Māori. Where the council’s response to an appeal will have an impact on Māori, this will be assessed at the time a decision is sought from the Planning Committee or delegated members of the Planning Committee.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Authors

Tony Reidy - Team leader Unitary Plan

Celia Davison - Team Leader Unitary Plan

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

29 November 2016

 

East West Link Project - political reference group and delegations

 

File No.: CP2016/22662

 

Purpose

1.       To establish a political reference group to consider and approve an Auckland Council submission to a Board of Inquiry on the New Zealand Transport Agency’s East West Link project.

Executive summary

2.       The New Zealand Transport Agency (the Agency) has prepared notices of requirement and resource consent applications (applications) to protect and construct a major road connecting State Highway 1 at Mt Wellington and State Highway 20 at Onehunga. The project is named the East West Link, as it runs east to west between the two state highways.

3.       The Agency intends to lodge the applications for the project with the Environmental Protection Authority in early December 2016.

4.       The Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Conservation will jointly make a decision on the national significance of the project and whether a Board of Inquiry is selected to make a decision on the project. This is expected in December 2016.  Depending on the Ministers’ decision, the applications could be notified in late January/February 2017, with a hearing in mid-2017.

5.       The project has environmental and community effects, impacts on council’s assets and impacts on transport systems and strategic outcomes identified in various council plans including the Auckland Plan and Local Board Area Plans.

6.       It is recommended that the council makes a submission on the project.

7.       Establishing an East West Link Political Reference Group comprising the Chair of the Planning Committee, the Ward Councillor for Maungakiekie- Tāmaki, two members of Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board, the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board Chair, and a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board to consider and approve an Auckland Council submission on the applications will:

·    facilitate development of a council submission representing shared governance views from the most directly affected council wards and local boards and from the Independent Māori Statutory Board,

·    enable preparation and finalisation of the submission within the statutory 20 working day submission period, taking into account the summer holiday shut down period and the Planning Committee meeting schedule.

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      agree to make a submission to the notices of requirement and resource consent application by the New Zealand Transport Agency for the East West Link.

b)      establish an East West Link Political Reference Group comprising the Chair of the Planning Committee, the Ward Councillor for Maungakiekie- Tāmaki,  the Chairs for Maungakiekie –Tāmaki and Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Boards, a second member of Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board and a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board.

c)      delegate authority to the East West Link Political Reference Group to work with the Manager Central and South Planning to prepare, approve and lodge a submission to the notice of requirement and resource consent applications by New Zealand Transport Agency for the East West Link project.

 

Comments

Context

8.       The East West Link is a new transport link on the north side of the Māngere Inlet continuing the greater Western Ring Route between State Highway 1 at Mt Wellington, and State Highway 20 at Onehunga. Its features include a new four-lane road along the foreshore, on-ramps, reclamations and connections to key local roads. The widening works on State Highway 1 at Princes Street in Ōtāhuhu and a new shared path bridge over State Highway 1 at Panama Road are part of the project and a broad programme of East West connections. It also includes new walking and cycling routes between Māngere Bridge, Onehunga town centre and towards Sylvia Park and around part of the Māngere Inlet. East West Link is intended to reduce travel times in the area for local businesses, truck operators and others to get in and out of Onehunga-Penrose and Neilson Street. It is intended to be an arterial road (incorporating traffic lights and intersections) and not a motorway.

9.       The East West Link entails a major programme of new infrastructure aimed at improving freight efficiency, commuter travel, walking, cycling and public transport in the area. It seeks to reduce the amount of traffic on local roads by separating through traffic from local traffic. It also addresses the challenging issue of the impact of industrial and manufacturing activities and urban stormwater on the Māngere Inlet by creating wetlands to capture and treat stormwater runoff from the Onehunga and One Tree Hill water catchment (refer to the map at Attachment A - East West Link Key Design Features).

10.     The Onehunga-Penrose-Mt Wellington business and logistics hub is often described as the engine room of manufacturing and industry in New Zealand (Auckland Plan, pages 153 and 325). The area’s accessibility to air and sea ports, the state highways and railway network is vital to how this area functions in the future. The project also has significant implications for the area’s communities and environment and for a range of projects relating to Onehunga, the Onehunga Wharf, Māngere Inlet and local board plans (refer to Attachment B - East West Link emerging issues).

11.     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 (State Highway 20) at Onehunga and the Southern Motorway (State Highway 1), 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 State Highway 20 and State Highway 1, 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 page 325, Box 13.3)

Auckland Council involvement in East West Link

12.     The Agency has been engaging with Auckland Council for several years including local boards, Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku), other Council Controlled Organisations, social and network infrastructure providers, planning and regulatory staff, and technical experts (refer to the Local Board Views section below for details).  The focus has been to balance the various land use, environmental, and economic outcomes to achieve a high quality urban form.

13.     On 6 July 2016, the Council’s Auckland Development Committee agreed that the East West Link project is a proposal of national significance, that it should be referred to a Board of Inquiry, and that Auckland Council has the capacity to process the matter, if required.  It also delegated authority to prepare a list of potential Board of Inquiry members, which was sent to the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Conservation.

14.     The Agency engaged with council staff and local boards on six different alignment options in October 2014 and feedback was provided. Feedback on proposed connections into and out of Onehunga-Penrose and public transport and cycling options between Māngere, Ōtāhuhu and Sylvia Park was provided in June 2015.  The Agency provided copies of preliminary draft technical assessment reports and plans for their preferred alignment and project proposals in September 2016 and council staff provided feedback on 18 October 2016.

Board of Inquiry process

15.     The Agency intends to lodge notices of requirement and a number of applications for resource consent that identify the corridor and works in detail and will include an Assessment of Effects on the Environment.  It intends to protect and construct the corridor for the East West Link through the designation and to obtain a range of land use, discharge and coastal resource consents under the Resource Management Act 1991. Part 6AA ‘Proposals of national significance’ of the Resource Management Act allows these matters to be processed by the Environmental Protection Authority.

16.     There are a number of differences with the Board of Inquiry process from the usual process for a notice of requirement and resource consent combined hearing led by the council which include the following features:

·    the Environmental Protection Authority notifies and assesses the applications and council is a submitter and not the regulator

·    appeals are limited to points of law which reduces the risks of delays and uncertainty.

17.     The council has a statutory role to assist the Environmental Protection Agency with the Board of Inquiry with pre-lodgement checks and a Key Issues Report.  Like any other affected organisation or individual, council can make a submission on the proposal.  There must be clear separation between these statutory and submitter roles. It is this second role that is the subject of this report.

Submission options

18.     Options for council’s submission have different resource implications and include making detailed or general comments which could:

·    oppose the proposal and seek to have it withdrawn

·    support the proposal and seek appropriate outcomes and conditions to mitigate effects

·    support the proposal with no additional requests.

19.     It is recommended that the council makes a detailed submission because of the importance of the project for the region and local economy and the potential for effects on local communities, the environment and other projects in the area including:

·    council assets (stormwater and leachate collection systems and roading assets)

·    council land (14 open space sites including Gloucester Park, Waikaraka Park and Cemetery, and Ann’s Creek Esplanade Reserve)

·    new council and community assets such as roading assets, recreation and cycling paths, boardwalks, lighting, artwork and information signage

·    effects on natural features, ecological areas and heritage sites protected in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan and reclamation works within the coastal marine area.

20.     By making a detailed submission on the project, council will be privy to any changes that evolve during the Board of Inquiry, and be able to participate in discussions over detailed technical matters.

Delegated authority options

21.     Creating a political reference group will greatly benefit the development and agreement of a submission within the 20 working day submission period which is likely to fall between late- January and mid-March 2017. The Planning Committee is scheduled to meet on 7 February and 7 March 2017, which will not allow for careful development and decisions on a Whole of Council submission in the timeframe.

22.     Alternatives to the recommendations include expanding or reducing the size of the political reference group, and having the Planning Committee consider and approve a council submission.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

23.     The project is important to the region but has particular implications for the industrial areas of Onehunga, Penrose and Mount Wellington, and is relevant to a range of projects within these Local Board areas including: Panuku’s Onehunga Transformation Project, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Area Plan 2013, Onehunga Port, and the Ōtāhuhu – Middlemore Spatial Priority Area project.

24.     Feedback from Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board in July 2016 on the project recognised the need to improve road, walking, cycling and public transport connections in the area and highlighted the 2014-17 Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board Plan statements about the importance of the area’s business economy, the need for infrastructure projects to enable freight movements, the need to reduce heavy traffic in residential areas, the need to engage with communities, stakeholders and iwi in a robust and understandable way, and the need to clearly identify a suite of mitigation initiatives.  It also made detailed comments on Hopua Crater, Gloucester Park, stormwater treatment, historic heritage, walking and cycling routes, rail to the airport, Ann’s Creek and Riverside (Panama Road).

25.     Feedback from Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board in July 2016 identified the potential impacts on business areas at Highbrook and Auckland Airport and the need for integration with greenways and other projects in the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu area. It also discussed protecting future rail connections and the importance of meaningful and timely engagement. Pedestrian safety in relation to Princess Street Bridge and congestion at Highbrook Interchange were also discussed.

26.     Maungakiekie-Tāmaki and Māngere-Ōtāhuhu local board representatives have been briefed on the current status of the East West Link project, the role of council in the Board of Inquiry and the anticipated timeframes.

27.     It is recommended that the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki and Māngere-Ōtāhuhu local board chairs (or the chairs’ nominees) participate in the Political Reference Group and ensure local board views are considered in any submission by the council. Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board has requested to have two members on the Political Reference Group (see Recommendation/s for details).

Māori impact statement

28.     The relationship of mana whenua with Onehunga, Manukau Harbour, Māngere Inlet, volcanoes, creeks and other places of significance is acknowledged.  The Agency has engaged with mana whenua on the development of options and details for the project over several years.  The following iwi have declared an interest in the project as mana whenua:

·    Te Akitai Waiohua

·    Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua

·    Ngāti Paoa

·    Ngāti Maru Rūnanga

·    Te Kawerau a Maki

·    Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki

·    Ngāti Whatua Ōrākei

·    Ngāti Whatua

·    Te Ahi Waru

·    Ngāti Tamaoho


 

29.     Panuku and Auckland Council staff have met with a Kaitiaki Project Working Group for East West Link and attended a mana whenua governance hui for East West Link in October 2016 to discuss respective roles of the council and mana whenua in the Board of Inquiry process, the relationship of East West Link to other council and Panuku projects and to explore opportunities for council/ Panuku and mana whenua to work together.

30.     Council staff will seek to meet with mana whenua representatives once the project is lodged, to understand issues.

31.     It is recommended that the Political Reference Group includes a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board.  This, together with future planned engagement with mana whenua, will ensure Māori perspectives are considered during the preparation of a council submission.

Implementation

32.     Council staff will advise on and prepare any submission and will workshop with the Political Reference Group.  The costs of this work will come from existing budgets.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A - East West Link proposed alignment

25

b

Attachment B - East West Link emerging issues

27

     

Signatories

Author

Ian Bayliss - Team Leader - Spatial Strategy

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

 



 

 


Planning Committee

29 November 2016

 

Page_000001


Planning Committee

29 November 2016

 

Northern Corridor Improvements Project - political reference group and delegations

 

File No.: CP2016/22683

Purpose

1.       To seek delegated authority for a political reference group to be established to develop and approve a council submission to the Board of Inquiry appointed to consider the New Zealand Transport Agency (the Agency) Northern Corridor Improvements project.

Executive summary

2.       The Northern Corridor Improvements Project (the project) is the final piece of the Western Ring Route, which is one of the Government’s seven Roads of National Significance.  The project’s key objective is to provide a direct motorway-to-motorway connection between the Northern Motorway (State Highway 1) and an upgraded Upper Harbour Highway (State Highway 18).

3.       The Agency intends to lodge the project applications in early December 2016 with the Environmental Protection Authority. A decision on the national significance of the project is expected from the Minister for the Environment in December 2016.  Depending on the Minister’s response, the applications could be notified in early February 2017, with a hearing in mid-2017. 

4.       The project has community and environmental effects, impacts on council’s assets and impacts on strategic outcomes identified in various council plans including the Auckland Plan and Local Board Area Plans.

5.       It is recommended that the council makes a submission in its role as unitary authority and landowner.

6.       Delegating authority to authorise a political reference group to develop and approve a submission from the council on the applications will:

·    facilitate development of a council submission with representatives from the most directly affected ward and local board, and from the Independent Māori Statutory Board;

·    enable preparation and finalisation of the submission within the statutory 20 working day submission period, taking into account the summer shut down period and committee calendar.

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      agrees to make a submission in respect of the Notice of Requirement by the New Zealand Transport Agency for the Northern Corridor Improvements project;

b)      establishes a Northern Corridor Improvements Political Reference Group comprising the Chair of the Planning Committee, Albany Ward Councillors, the Upper Harbour Local Board Chair (or nominee) and a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board;

c)      delegates authority to the Northern Corridor Improvements Political Reference Group to work with the Manager North West Planning to prepare, approve and lodge a submission in respect of the Notice of Requirement by New Zealand Transport Agency for the Northern Corridor Improvements project.

 

Comments

Context

7.       The project is the final piece of the Western Ring Route, which is one of the Government’s seven Roads of National Significance.  It will provide a direct motorway-to-motorway connection between the Northern Motorway (State Highway 1) and an upgraded Upper Harbour Highway (State Highway18).  It will also provide an extended Northern Busway from the Constellation bus station to Albany bus station, upgraded local road connections, including new walking and cycling routes along the eastern side of State Highway 1 and the northern side of State Highway18.  Refer to the map in Attachment A.

8.       The project aligns with the Auckland Plan, which identifies the following three major transport projects to be completed by 2020:

·   Western Ring Route

·   Public transport service improvements

·   Walking and cycling infrastructure improvements.

9.       The Council’s Auckland Development Committee agreed on 6 July 2016 that the project is a proposal of national significance, that it should be referred to a Board of Inquiry, and that the council has the capacity to process the matter, if required.  It also delegated authority to prepare a list of potential Board of Inquiry members.  A letter including the list was sent to the Environment Protection Agency to refer to the Ministers for the Environment and Conservation for their consideration, (refer Attachment B).

Statutory Process

10.     The Agency intends to protect and construct the corridor for the project through the designation process and to obtain a range of land use and discharge resource consents under the Resource Management Act 1991.

11.     The Agency intends to lodge the project applications with the Environmental Protection Authority in early December 2016.  A ministerial decision on the national significance of the project is expected in early December 2016.  Depending on the Minister’s response, the applications could be notified in early February 2017. A hearing is likely to be held by mid-2017. 

12.     The council has a statutory role as regulatory authority to assist the Board of Inquiry in processing the proposal.  It can also, like any other affected organisation, landowner or individual, make a submission on the proposal.  There must be clear separation between these statutory and submitter roles. It is the submitter role that is the subject of this report.

Submission process and options

13.     Options for council’s submission have different resource implications and include making detailed or general comments which could:

·   oppose the proposal and seek to have it withdrawn;

·   support the proposal and seek appropriate outcomes and conditions to mitigate effects;

·   support the proposal with no additional requests.

14.     It is recommended that the council makes a detailed submission because of the importance of the project for the region and local economy and the potential for effects on the environment, council assets (existing and new), and the delivery of council’s strategic outcomes.  By making a detailed submission on the project, the council will be involved in any changes through the Board of Inquiry, and participate in expert witness meetings and discussions over detailed matters. Separate council-led workstreams have been working on finalising heads of agreement prior to the Board of Inquiry hearing to ensure the council and its Council Controlled Organisations work together and secure beneficial outcomes for the council, Watercare and Auckland Transport assets impacted by the project. Attachment C identifies key potential effects of the project.

15.     Creating a political reference group and delegating authority to authorise this group to consider and approve a submission on the applications will:

·   facilitate development of a council submission with representatives from the most directly affected ward and local board, and from the Independent Māori Statutory Board;

·   enable preparation and finalisation of the submission within the statutory 20 working days submission period, taking into account the summer shut down period and committee calendar.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

16.     The project is located wholly within the Upper Harbour Local Board area. The Board’s 2014 Area Plan identifies as an outcome; a well-connected, accessible and well-designed road network with connected bus services walkways and cycleways connecting to the rest of the North Shore, west and the central city.

17.     The Agency has regularly updated the Upper Harbour Local Board and neighbouring Hibiscus and Bays and Rodney Local Boards to keep them informed on the overall progress of the project and to seek feedback.

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

19.     Particular concerns expressed by the Boards are the potential impact of the project on the North Harbour Hockey Stadium and on local businesses.  In response to concerns raised by the Upper Harbour Local Board, the Agency carried out investigations into an Unsworth overbridge link from Unsworth Heights to North Harbour, to mitigate the loss of direct access from Unsworth Drive to State Highway 18.  The Agency concluded that an overbridge was not the preferred option.  Traffic modelling showed an overbridge would create a ‘rat run travelling between Glenfield and North Harbour through the residential neighbourhood. The Agency is currently working with the Local Board in relation to the location of a proposed stormwater pond at either Bluebird or Rook Reserves.

20.     It is recommended that as the project is wholly within the Upper Harbour Local Board area, the Upper Harbour Local Board Chair (or the Chair’s nominee) should be included in the political reference group to provide the views of the Local Board as part the preparation of any submission by the council.

Māori impact statement

21.     The Agency has identified the following iwi as having mana whenua status over the project area:

·     Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki

·     Ngāti Manuhiri

·     Ngāti Maru

·     Ngāti Paoa

·     Ngāti Tamaoho

·     Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua

·     Ngāti Whatua

·     Te Akitai Waiohua

·     Te Kawerau a Maki

22.     All have declared an interest in the project.  The Agency in August 2015 established the Northern-Central Iwi Integration Group which is now the primary mechanism for engagement through a series of monthly hui.  All iwi attended a site visit in May 2016. To date Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki, Ngati Manuhiri and Te Akitai Waiohua have provided Cultural Value Assessments to the Agency. 

23.     No wahi tapu or archaeological sites of significance are recorded in the project area.

24.     Actual or potential effects identified by mana whenua as being of concern include:

·   avoiding effects on natural areas and waterways.  Lucas Creek (located north of the project site) is identified as a culturally significant area;  

·   potential effects of earthworks on downstream water quality and potential opportunities to improve water quality within streams in the existing catchments;

·   the protection and enhancement of the environment for  living taonga (plants, birds and reptiles) within the project area;

·   the inclusion of a Cultural Values Framework and cultural  responsiveness through the project Urban Design Landscape Framework and contract documentation;

25.     A member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board was appointed to the group given delegated authority by the council’s Auckland Development Committee to prepare a list of potential Board of Inquiry members.

26.     It is recommended that the project’s Political Reference Group should include a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board.  This will ensure Māori perspectives are part of the council’s submission and inputs into the project.

Implementation

27.     Council staff will advise on and prepare any submission.  The costs associated with preparing a submission are provided within the Plans and Places budget.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft Alignment Plan

33

b

Auckland Council List of potential Board of Inquiry Members - Letter to the Environmental Protection Authority

35

c

Key potential effects of the project

37

     

Signatories

Author

Warren Maclennan - Manager Planning - North/West

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

29 November 2016

 

Page_000001


Planning Committee

29 November 2016

 

Page_000001


Page_000002


Planning Committee

29 November 2016

 

Page_000001


Planning Committee

29 November 2016

 

Submission on the Regulatory Systems (Building and Housing) Amendment Bill

 

File No.: CP2016/23536

 

Purpose

1.       To approve an Auckland Council submission to the Local Government and Environment Committee on the Regulatory Systems (Building and Housing) Amendment Bill.

Executive summary

2.       The Regulatory Systems (Building and Housing) Amendment Bill was introduced to the House on 12 October 2016.  The bill is an omnibus bill and one of a package of three omnibus bills that contain amendments to legislation administered by the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment. This bill makes amendments in the building and housing areas.

3.       Part 1 of the Bill relates to the Building Act 2004.  There are no substantial changes proposed.

4.       Part 2 of the Bill relates to the Unit Titles Act 2010.  The purpose is to reduce unnecessary compliance burden and to clarify various operational matters.  These changes are supported.

5.       Staff have identified an additional technical issue related to staged unit titles.  While the Bill does propose amendments to the Unit Titles Act, the Bill does not propose any changes in this specific area.  However, there are small changes that can be made to the Unit Titles Act 2010 and consequential changes to the Resource Management Act provisions that are within the general  scope of the omnibus bill and which will ensure the staging of unit title developments can operate as the legislation intended.  The Bill offers an opportunity to efficiently address the technical Unit Title Act process issue and therefore a submission seeking the inclusion of a further provision is recommended.

6.       Submissions close Friday 2 December 2016.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      approve Auckland Council’s submission to the Local Government and Environment Committee on the Regulatory Systems (Building and Housing) Amendment Bill.

b)      authorise the Committee Chair and Deputy Chair to make any minor amendments to council’s submission on the Regulatory Systems (Building and Housing) Amendment Bill.

6.       The Regulatory Systems (Building and Housing) Amendment Bill was introduced to the House on 12 October 2016.  The bill is an omnibus bill and one of a package of three omnibus bills that contain amendments to legislation administered by the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment. This bill makes amendments in the building and housing areas.

7.       As a group, each bill seeks to maintain the effectiveness and efficiency of the regulatory systems established by the Acts amended by the bills and so reduce the chance of regulatory failure.  The amendments will achieve this objective by:

·    Clarifying and updating statutory provisions in each Act amended to give effect to the purpose of that Act and its provisions; and

·    Addressing regulatory duplication, gaps, errors and inconsistencies within and between different pieces of legislation; and

·    Keeping the regulatory system up to date and relevant; and

·    Removing unnecessary compliance costs and costs of doing business.

8.       Part 1 of the Bill relates to the Building Act 2004.  The purpose is to make minor fixes to improve the overall quality of the Act.  Staff have not identified a need to submit on Part 1 as the changes focus on cross-referencing and redundant clauses, not substantial policy matters.

9.       Part 2 of the Bill relates to the Unit Titles Act 2010.  The purpose is to reduce unnecessary compliance burden and to clarify matters in relation to unit plans, body corporate operational rules, reassessment of ownership interests and utility interests, the registration of easements and covenants, leases and licences of common property and extraordinary general meetings of the body corporate

10.     Over the past year, Nikki Kaye, Member of Parliament for Auckland Central, initiated work on improving the operation of bodies corporate.  In addition, a report was issued by the Unit Title Working Group in May 2016 which made a range of recommendations, including legislative change. 

11.     The Regulatory Systems (Building and Housing) Amendment Bill is focused on smaller regulatory fixes, not the systemic and significant change that is recommended through the report from the Unit Title Working Group.

12.     To the extent that the Bill addresses operational improvements, it is supported.  However, staff have identified a technical misalignment around provisions for the staging of unit titles in the Unit Titles Act 2010, the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Building Act 2004.  The submission proposes that this matter could be fixed as part of this Bill.

13.     Discussion of the issue and proposed amendments form the Auckland Council submission.  In summary, the Unit Titles Act 2010 provides for unit title subdivisions to be staged i.e. not all issued at the same time.  However, the operational provision under the Resource Management Act 1991 (section 224(f)) requires building code compliance of all buildings within a subdivision at the initial deposit of a survey plan.  In reality, with a staged unit title subdivision, this requirement is not possible as not all building consents will have been sought.  Staff believe this is an unintentional misalignment of various legislative requirements and fixing it would enable more efficient and effective processing of staged unit title subdivisions.

Consideration

14.     There are three main options open to the Committee on this matter:

·    Do nothing and decide not make a submission on the Regulatory Systems (Building and Housing) Amendment Bill.

·    Approve the draft submission on the Regulatory Systems (Building and Housing) Amendment Bill.

·    Decide not to make a submission on the Regulatory Systems (Building and Housing) Amendment Bill but raise the matter with government agencies and ministers as part of ongoing dialogue.

15.     There is no legal requirement for Auckland Council to make a submission to the Bill.  However, in this case, the legislative review provides an opportunity to raise an operational matter that needs to be fixed and will assist in the construction and provision of multi-unit developments throughout the country.  Overall, it is recommended that the committee approve the submission to the Bill.

Local board views and implications

16.     The introduction of the Bill to the House in October and the submission period over November came at the same time as Local Body elections and inauguration of elected members.  Accordingly, staff have not requested Local Board input into the submission during this period. 

Māori impact statement

17.     As a result of the time constraints and complexity of the election period, staff have not engaged with iwi, mana whenua or the Independent Māori Statutory Board over this submission. 

18.     The issue raised in the submission is operational in nature and affects Māori in the same way as any other group in Auckland.

Implementation

There are no implementation issues.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Auckland Council Submission to the Regulatory Systems (Building and Housing) Amendment Bill

43

     

Signatories

Author

Megan Tyler - Executive Officer CPO

Authoriser

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

29 November 2016

 

Page_000001


Page_000002


Page_000003


Page_000004


Page_000005


Planning Committee

29 November 2016

 

Auckland Housing Accord Extension

 

File No.: CP2016/22753

 

Purpose

1.         To amend the Auckland Housing Accord to extend beyond the current 31 December 2016 termination date. This will allow a small number of Special Housing Area applicants to complete their plan variations.

Executive summary

2.         The Auckland Housing Accord (the accord) was established on 3 October 2013, between Auckland Council (the council) and the government. It aimed to increase housing supply and improve housing affordability in Auckland in the interim period until the Auckland Unitary Plan became operative.

3.         The accord allows the approval and consenting processes for Special Housing Areas to be undertaken by the council against the provisions of the Unitary Plan. 

4.         The original accord was set to come to an end on 30 September 2016, three years from notification of the Unitary Plan. The accord was subsequently amended on 15 September 2016, by the Joint Housing Steering Group (comprising the Mayor and the Minister for Building and Housing) to extend the termination date to “31 December 2016, or any later date if mutually agreed following the 2016 local government elections.”

5.         A further amendment to the accord termination date extends the council’s ability to process plan variations under the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas (HASHA) Act 2013 (the act).

6.         An extension of the current accord to close of business 22 May 2017 has been agreed, in discussion with relevant stakeholders, as the best practicable option. This date is 12 months from the gazettal date of the final tranche 10 of Special Housing Areas.

7.         This extension will allow a small number of existing Special Housing Area applicants that have yet to complete their plan variation applications, (and are unlikely to meet the current 31 December deadline) to continue under the act. This is to see existing Special Housing Areas through under the act, and not to establish any new ones.

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      note that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor, being members of the Joint Housing Steering Group, will extend the termination date of the Auckland Housing Accord to close of business 22 May 2017, as per clause 38 of the accord. 

Comments

Background to the accord

8.         The Auckland Housing Accord (the accord) was established on 3 October 2013 between the council and the government as a short term mechanism in Auckland in the interim period until the Auckland Unitary Plan became operative. The primary intention of the accord was increasing housing supply and improving housing affordability.

9.         The accord facilitates accelerated housing supply in residential developments consistent with the Unitary Plan, through a more flexible process for development approvals and consenting.


 

10.       It provides the basis for collaboration between the council and the government on housing and provides the council with additional powers to grant special approvals and consent new land and housing developments under the Housing Accord Special Housing Areas Act 2013 (the act).

Recent developments

11.       The act was amended to extend the date until which Special Housing Areas can be established by three years to 16 September 2019. This extension was in response to high housing demand in areas outside of Auckland[1].

12.       Subsequently, on 15 September 2016, the Auckland accord termination date was extended to 31 December 2016, by way of an amendment to clause 38 of the accord, as it was clear that not all Special Housing Areas would have completed their plan variation applications.  

13.       A further extension of the accord is needed, as there are three Special Housing Areas yet to complete their plan variation applications. These are unlikely to meet the current 31 December 2016 deadline. The most significant of these developments, Redhills, has the potential to add 3,500 new sites and dwellings over 10 years. A decision on whether the Redhills plan variation will require a hearing will be known in early December. If a hearing is required, this will likely take place in February/March 2017.

Strategic context

14.       Auckland has a housing supply and affordability issue. The government has been progressively introducing a range of urban planning reforms to respond to this. These reforms are very broad, and seek to achieve a number of aims.

15.       The act, and subsequently the accord, plays a role in increasing the supply of land in high growth urban areas, and providing a faster consenting and approval process. 

Preferred option

16.       An extension to the accord is required to progress the plan variation applications of remaining Special Housing Areas. Should an extension not be agreed to, these developments will lose their Special Housing Area status and be subject to Unitary Plan processes. Significant parts of the Unitary Plan are currently under appeal and this will add considerable uncertainty and cost to the developers concerned.

17.       The decision required of this committee is to agree to the proposed extension to the accord, to allow sufficient time for all remaining Special Housing Areas to complete their plan variations. 

18.       It is proposed that the accord be extended to close of business 22 May 2017. The date is 12 months from the date of gazettal of the final tranche 10 of Special Housing Areas, and will allow sufficient time for the three outstanding Special Housing Area plan changes to be completed.

19.       There is no additional legal or other risk to extending the accord to this date, so long as it is used to complete existing plan variations.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

20.       The accord is a region wide issue and is a matter for the governing body to consider. Local board views have therefore not been sought.

Māori impact statement

21.       The largest of the Special Housing Areas likely to progress their plan variations under this extension is at Redhills, within the rohe of Te Kawerau a Maki. In proposing these Special Housing Areas, iwi were informed and given the opportunity to indicate their concerns or recommendations.

22.       Mataawaka may be affected by, or have an interest in, individual developments progressing under the accord. However, this report does not seek changes to the developments themselves or propose new Special Housing Areas, and does not have particular benefits or adverse effects upon Māori. 

Council departments and CCOs

23.       The advice detailed in this report has been arrived at with the involvement of the Development Programme Office and the Director of Regulatory Services on Special Housing Area monitoring data and technical expertise respectively.

24.       Throughout the process the councils’ legal team have been have been engaged to ensure there are no risks with either the proposed date or the process overall.

Community and key stakeholders

25.       The principal external parties to the accord, and this decision, are the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and the Minister of Building and Housing. Their advice has been sought.

Implementation

26.       Arrangements will be made for the Mayor and the Minister for Building and Housing to meet and sign an extension to the accord prior to 31 December.

27.       This will allow the council to continue to process plan variation applications from Special Housing Areas until 22 May 2017.

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Auckland Housing Accord, September 2013

53

b

Proposed Amendment to the Auckland Housing Accord

61

     

Signatories

Authors

Luke Carey - Growth and Infrastructure Advisor

Christina Kaiser - Principal Strategic Advisor

Authorisers

Jacques  Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

29 November 2016

 

Page_000001


Page_000002


Page_000003


Page_000004


Page_000005


Page_000006


Page_000007


Planning Committee

29 November 2016

 

Page_000001


Planning Committee

29 November 2016

 

Auckland Plan Refresh - proposed approach

 

File No.: CP2016/22461

 

Purpose

1.       To introduce and seek the committee’s endorsement of an approach to the refresh of the Auckland Plan 2012.

Executive summary

2.       A commitment was made to review the Auckland Plan on a six-yearly basis. This report provides an overview of an approach to the refresh of the Auckland Plan 2012. This approach will enable the refreshed Auckland Plan to inform the development of the Long-Term Plan 2018-2028.

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      agree in principle, the broad approach and timeline to preparing a refreshed Auckland Plan.

b)      request that the Auckland Plan Refresh – proposed approach report be circulated to all local boards for information.

Comments

Background

3.       Section 79 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 requires the council to prepare and adopt a spatial plan for Auckland, a 30 year high-level strategy to guide Auckland’s growth and development. The purpose of the Auckland Plan is to:

a)    set a strategic direction for Auckland and its communities that integrates social, economic, environmental, and cultural objectives;

b)    outline a high-level development strategy that will achieve that direction and those objectives;

c)    enable coherent and co-ordinated decision-making by Auckland Council (as the spatial planning agency) and other parties to determine the future location and timing of critical infrastructure, services and investment within Auckland in accordance with the strategy; and

d)    provide a basis for aligning the implementation plans, regulatory plans and funding programmes of the council.

4.       The current plan was adopted in 2012 following extensive engagement with Aucklanders.  The plan set the platform for the Unitary Plan, the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 and the Auckland Transport Alignment Project, amongst others.  A commitment was made to review the plan on a six-yearly basis. 

5.       Valuable lessons have been learned regarding the current Auckland Plan, especially the role it should play in making trade-offs, and how it needs to direct the Long-term Plan more strongly. 

6.       The Mayor has legislated responsibility to articulate a vision for Auckland and lead its delivery.


 

7.       The refreshed plan will:

a)    be a critical means by which council can plan for and prioritise investment through the Long-term Plan 2018-2028

b)    provide a basis for further discussion with partners on addressing key infrastructure challenges facing Auckland

c)    provide direction for the next level of strategies and plans required to support delivery.

Objectives

8.       As a spatial plan for the new council, the Auckland Plan was fit for purpose. The landscape has however changed considerably since the plan’s adoption and we understand more about the challenges of implementation.

9.       The objectives of the refresh are therefore to ensure the plan is:

a)    Responsive: Ensuring that key challenges and emerging issues are proactively addressed

b)    Focused: Identifying the most important levers to prioritise and streamline the plan’s content

 

c)    Simpler: Establishing a clearer line of sight from outcomes to actions and making it easier to navigate and understand while maintaining a strategic, long-term view

 

d)    Transparent: Developing a robust monitoring framework to track progress and providing an evidence base to engage with Aucklanders.

 

Approach

10.     Staff are currently developing a detailed work programme that will support elected member decision-making and ensure that we engage effectively with the people of Auckland.

11.     Further consideration of issues, broad principles to guide the approach and region-wide priorities will be discussed at proposed elected member committee workshops beginning in February 2017.

12.     Key milestones include:

Planning Committee report and briefing on proposed approach/timeline

29 Nov 2016

Committee workshops

Feb-May 2017

Informal public engagement (on ‘big issues’)

May/June 2017

Draft refreshed plan endorsed for consultation

Aug/Sept 2017

Formal consultation -  hearings, deliberations and decisions

Nov 2017

Adoption of refreshed Auckland Plan

Dec 2017

 

13.     The refreshed plan is intended to inform subsequent implementation through the Long-term Plan 2018-28. 

14.     An Engagement and Communication Plan is under development. It will describe how the council intends to engage and communicate with key partners, stakeholders and Aucklanders in the development of the refreshed plan.  It provides an ideal opportunity to work in partnership with government on Auckland’s big issues. The general approach to engaging will be to leverage off and work collaboratively with local board plan and Long-term Plan 2018-28 engagement processes.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

15.     Local boards will play a significant role in the development of the refreshed Auckland Plan. Key points of engagement will be captured in the proposed Engagement and Communications Plan.

Māori impact statement

16.     The refresh of the plan and its contribution to Māori well-being will be of interest to Māori.   Mana whenua are expected to be involved in early discussions on the development of the refreshed plan.  The proposed Engagement and Communications Plan will outline engagement with mana whenua and Māori generally.

17.     It is envisaged that the plan’s development will be informed by the Independent Māori Statutory Board’s Schedule of Issues of Significance and the Māori Plan (and its report on outcome indicators).

Implementation

18.     A detailed project plan for delivery of the refreshed plan is under development. The costs associated with the preparation of the plan will be met from within existing budgets in the current financial year. Subject to decisions on the process and approach for the refresh, additional funding may be required in the 2017/18 financial year through the Annual Plan.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Authors

Karryn Kirk - Principal Strategic Adviser Auckland Plan Implementation

Denise O’Shaughnessy - Manager Strategic Advice

Authorisers

Jacques  Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

29 November 2016

 

Roading Exchange Policy

 

File No.: CP2016/23561

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To approve the Roading Exchange Policy.

Executive summary

2.       The Roading Exchange Policy will ensure that Auckland Council and Auckland Transport have a transparent and consistent process for evaluating and responding to requests from developers to exchange existing road assets for new roads within residential, commercial or industrial developments or redevelopments.

3.       The policy enables good transport outcomes and efficient and effective re-development of urban zoned land in Auckland. This policy is intended to apply where an applicant makes a request to Auckland Council and Auckland Transport to stop a legal road, either formed or unformed road, and exchange the stopped road for new road(s) constructed by the developer on the developer’s land. The new roads are then vested back to Auckland Council as legal roads and then come under the management and control of Auckland Transport.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      approve the Roading Exchange Policy as attached to this report

 

 

Comments

4.       Council owns land in roads in the Auckland region. Auckland Transport has the power to stop roads under the Local Government Act 1974.

5.       From time to time developers have approached Council and Auckland Transport to exchange existing roads with new roads to be developed as part of residential, commercial and industrial subdivisions. The cost of forming new roads is usually met by the developer. Existing and new roads give rise to operational maintenance and renewal cost to Auckland Transport.

6.       Council and Auckland Transport have responsibilities to ratepayers, funders, and other stakeholders to ensure the prudent management of assets and to achieve appropriate returns on asset investments.

7.       Developers wanting to exchange land under the policy need to engage with Council and Auckland Transport as early as possible to ensure the assessment of public value achieved through the exchange provides for an appropriate opportunity for Council and Auckland Transport to assess the application against:

·       Strategic fit with the Auckland Unitary Plan

·       Transport resilience

·       Urban design best practice

·       Any improved urban (residential and business) yields as a result of re-developing the stopped road; and

·       The relative value of the land parcels proposed to be exchanged.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

8.       There has been no engagement with Local Boards in the preparation of this policy.  The roading exchange policy is consistent with Local Board delegated authority.

Māori impact statement

9.       The roading exchange policy is consistent with iwi management plans across the region.  There has been no engagement with iwi, mana whenua or Independent Māori Statutory Board in the preparation of this policy.

Implementation

10.     The roading exchange policy also needs to be endorsed by Auckland Transport’s Board. The policy provides for senior management to be delegated the authority to approve road exchanges.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Roading Exchange Policy

71

     

Signatories

Author

Alina Wimmer - Lead Project Planner

Authorisers

John Dunshea - General Manager Development Programmes Office

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

29 November 2016

 

a)         Roading Exchange Policy

 

1       Purpose

·  To ensure that Auckland Council (AC) and Auckland Transport (AT) have a transparent and consistent process for evaluating and responding to requests from developers to exchange existing road assets for new roads within residential subdivisions, commercial or industrial developments or redevelopments. This policy enables AC and AT to be satisfied that an exchange of existing road assets for new road assets provide a significant public good benefit(s) that would not otherwise be realised without the development.

 

2       Context

·  AC  and AT own and control roads in the Auckland region. A pre-requisite for this policy to apply is that the road is stopped.

 

·  AT is the road controlling authority and manages and controls the roads owned by Auckland Council making up the Auckland transport system under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act (LGACA) 2009 . AT has the powers conferred by the Local Government Act 1974 (LGA) to stop roads.

 

·  From time to time developers have approached AC and or AT to exchange existing roads with new roads to be developed as part of residential, commercial and industrial subdivisions. The costs of forming roads is a usually met by the developer. Existing roads (formed and unformed) are assets owned by AC and represent a significant capital investment.  Both existing and new roads accepted into the Auckland transport system give rise to a significant operation, maintenance and renewal cost to AT.

 

·  The exchange of existing roading assets for new roading assets without the transfer of additional value or benefit represents a transfer of value to the developer.

 

·  AC and AT have responsibilities to ratepayers, funders, and other stakeholders to ensure the prudent management of assets ,and to achieve appropriate returns on asset investments.

 

·  This policy aims to provide clear and transparent parameters, process and statutory requirements of AT and AC in achieving the policy purpose, noting that:

·   

1.   The land included in existing roading assets has a current market value;

 

2.   In the normal course of subdivision, the formation and vesting of roads is a cost to the developer in addition to any development contributions levied in respect of the subdivision;

 

3.   Land occupied by roads is owned by AC and is under the management and control of AT as the road controlling authority for the Auckland transport system.  AT holds powers in relation to roads conferred by the Local Government Act (LGA) 1974;

 

4.   To give effect to any exchange requires a road stopping under the LGA 1974, which is subject to public consultation and provides for the right to object to the road stopping.  On receipt of any objection to the road stopping AT is required to consider the objection and decide whether or not to uphold the objection. If AT decides to disallow the objection and proceed with the road stopping the matter must be appealed to the Environment Court by the objector for hearing ; and

 

5.   Disposal of land requires AT Board and AC committee/governing body approvals.

 

3       Core Principles

·  The exchange proposal must provide significant public benefit.

 

·  Public benefit includes the following:

 

·      Enable consolidation of land, reorganisation of land holdings to enable the increase in the number of houses that would otherwise have been built without the roading land to be exchanged;

 

·      Enable more efficient use of land;

 

·      Enable residential and employment land to be developed more efficiently;

 

·      Enable housing to be delivered efficiently;

 

·      Enable acquisition of land for AT and/or AC projects;

 

·      Deliver Improvements to the existing roading network;

·      Enhance access to a transport service or facility should also be considered

 

·      Enable the earlier delivery of a future transport project;

 

·      Provide or deliver greater public access to areas of significant ecological or recreational value, such as rivers, forests, lakes, parks or other recreational areas.

 

3.1.1       Other Principles

·  Strategic Fit

·  The exchange proposal must :

 

·  Support and enable Auckland Plan priorities:

 

·      Support greater integration between land use and transport;

 

·      Improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the region’s transport networks;

 

·      Make the best use of the existing transport system;

 

·      Improve transport safety and reduce adverse impacts from transport on the surrounding environment;

 

·      Be consistent with AT’s strategic direction as outlined in the Integrated Transport Programme (ITP);

 

·      Be compatible with relevant policy approaches adopted by AC and AT e.g  Transport funding policy.

 

·  Public /private benefits

 

·      Takes into account the relative private and public benefits of the exchange proposal

 

·  Economic Efficiency

 

·      Recognise the infrastructure required to be provided at the developer’s cost under relevant statutory consents and plans;

 

·      Maximise public benefits and other commercial outcomes for AC and AT where appropriate;

 

·      Be cost neutral to AT (all costs associated with the proposal are met by the developer). 

 

·  Effectiveness

 

·      Increase the supply of housing.

·      Achieve enhanced transport outcomes

 

·  Compliance

 

·      Be assessed  consistently with other exchange proposal assessments;

·      Comply with legal requirements.

 

4       Organisational Scope

This policy intends to enable good transport outcomes and efficient and effective re-development of urban zoned land in Auckland. i.e. all land within the Rural Urban Boundary excluding land zoned Future Urban. 

This policy is Auckland-wide and is intended to apply where an applicant makes a request to Auckland Council and/or Auckland Transport to stop a legal road(s), either formed or unformed road, and exchange the stopped road for new road(s) constructed by the developer on the developer’s land. The new roads are then vested back to Auckland Council as legal roads and then come under the management and control of AT. Prior to applying for a road stopping and road exchange, the developer must have lodged with Auckland Council:

·      A pre-application for subdivision and/or land use consent;

·      A subdivision and/or land use consent; or

·      A plan change.

Examples:

·      A brownfield road closure application that is being considered together with a re-development land use and subdivision consent; or

·      A greenfield road closure application that is being considered together with a land use and/or subdivision consent.

5       Application Process

Developers wishing to exchange land under the policy need to engage with AC and AT as early as possible to ensure the assessment of public value achieved through the exchange provides an appropriate opportunity for AC and AT to assess the application and if approved to enter into an agreement with the developer. The applicant must provide sufficient information to demonstrate that:

·      The exchange will unlock larger public benefits if it proceeds than if it did not;

·      The exchange will provide measurable public benefits of equivalent or greater value than the existing road land to be exchanged;

·      The end development does not unnecessarily increase consequential opex for AT i.e. the applicant should comply with AT technical standards

·      There is an increase in housing/employment that can be delivered if the exchange is made and is supported by the cost benefit analysis in 5.1.2 below, and

·      The exchange allows for the better configuration of residential and business subdivisions to achieve more affordable housing than would otherwise have been achieved.  Evidence will be required to be provided.

This information is assessed using a planning evaluation/cost-benefit analysis prepared by AT and DPO to consider the value of the road to be stopped against:

·      The strategic fit;

·      The status quo yield (i.e. current zoning allowance);

·      Transport resilience;

·      Urban design best practice; and

·      Any improved urban (residential and business) yields as a result of re-developing the stopped road.

·      The relative value of land parcels proposed to be exchanged.

 

5.1.1  Initial process of enquiry

·  The applicant submits their new design/proposal showing the area of road to be stopped and new roads to be created, proposed lots and scheme plan. The applicant must indicate the area of road requested to be stopped.

·   

·  The application should be measured against the core principles outlined in sections 3 and 3.1.1 of this policy and as referred to in 5.1.2 below.

 

5.1.2  Cost-benefit analysis

AT and DPO staff will prepare a joint cost-benefit analysis report that assesses the proposal against this policy.

 

Public Benefit and Costs

Private Benefit and costs

Net benefits

Strategic fit of proposal

 

 

 

Urban  Design best practice

 

 

 

Connectivity

 

 

 

Yield (status quo)

 

 

 

Yield (proposed)

 

 

 

 

The report is submitted to AT and Auckland Council Executive Leadership team (2 members from each T4 and above)

 

6       Standard terms and conditions

6.1.1  Statutory Obligation

·  Road stoppings related to this policy will be completed under the statutory process set out in the LGA 1974/2002. (Refer section 319 and 342, and Schedule 10 of the LGA 1974).

 

·  AT has independent statutory functions under the LGA 1974 including a statutory right to be able to exercise its governing responsibility of the road stopping process. Therefore, AT must not be confined or restricted by any contractual arrangements with a developer(s) to do so.

 

·  The applicant understands that this statutory process involves public consultation which brings the possibility of objections to be lodged. AT decides whether or not any objections are upheld or disallowed in the first instance. The statutory process involves variable timeframes which may be significantly lengthened due to objection to a proposal and legal proceedings

 

·  The applicant understands that any associated costs are to met by the applicant

 

·  There is no guarantee that a road stopping will be confirmed.

 

·  LINZ prefers that, in the first instance, local authorities apply the procedures in s342 of the LGA, given the requirements for public notification.

 

·  Road should be stopped using the LGA when there are likely to be objections to the proposal, or matters of public access to consider.

 

·  If Council wishes to use the Public Works Act 1981(PWA) it should be satisfied that:

·      The extent of road to be stopped is minor

·      All existing and proposed sites would be serviced by the new road layout

·      There is no net loss of road or public access arising as a result of the proposal

·      Land owner approvals have been obtained from the developer, Auckland Council and affected parties

·      There is minimal likelihood of any additional considerations arising through public submissions/objections.

·  These ‘tests’ outlined above have been developed by AC legal and applicants wishing to use the PWA process should be vetted by AC legal to ensure consistency with this policy.The decision on whether to progress the road stopping under the PWA or LGA rests with council.

 

·  Adjoining Owner consents

·      Section 116(2)(b)(i) of the Public Works Act, the consent of the adjoining owner is not required when adequate road access is left or provided. Adequate access should include both legal and practicable access to the adjoining land.

·      It is prudent to obtain adjoining landowner consent as it provides evidence that the adjoining owner has agreed to any exchange.

·      The consent or a local authority under s116(2)(d) of the Public Works Act should be signed by the principal administrative officer.

 

6.1.2  Agreement

·  The developer must enter into an Infrastructure Funding Agreement (IFA) commercial terms which will be agreed by Auckland Council and AT .

 

·  The developer is responsible for delivery of new roads to specified standards not to a fixed monetary value. The developer must comply with AT’s Code of Practice/Transport Design Manual in relation to design specifications so as to manage consequential operational expenditure (OPEX).

 

·  The developer must provide appropriate guarantees or bond arrangements that the identified public benefit enabled by the exchange will be delivered by the date as specified within the IFA by the Chief Executive of AT.  An IFA will usually be required to specify the commercial arrangements between Auckland Council, the developer and AT. The quantum for a guarantee or bond will be recommended by AT staff.

·   

6.1.3  Related Costs

·  The developer is responsible for payment of the fair and reasonable costs, associated with:

 

1.   Preparing the Infrastructure Funding Agreement;

 

2.   All statutory processes related to a road stopping and/or property transfer, including any planning assessment or other technical assessment required to support the road stopping;

 

3.   Any costs relating to any legal advice or legal proceedings;

 

4.   AT / AC staff time in processing the application  If additional resourcing is required to process the application, the costs will be recovered from the developer.

 

5.   all disbursements incurred by AC and or AT in processing the application ; and

 

6.   Any costs awarded by the Environment Court against AC or AT relating to the road stopping

 

7       Legislative Compliance

Auckland Council and Auckland Transport are required to manage their processes and procedures in accordance with the Local Government Act 1974 and 2002 and Resource Management Act 1991.

Refer http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/browse.aspx.

Search the:

Local Government Act 1974/2002

Resource Management Act 1991

Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009;s40 Operating Principles

Public Works Act 1981

8       Definitions

Auckland Transport:       Auckland Transport (AT) is responsible for all of the Auckland region’s transport services (excluding state highways), the Auckland road network, footpaths, cycling network, public parking, and public transport network (bus, train and ferry).

 

Brownfield:                    Brownfield land is land within existing urban areas that is or has been in urban use already and can be developed further or redeveloped, usually to a higher intensity. http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/plansstrategies/theaucklandplan/Documents/housinglandsupplyfaqs.pdf

 

 

Environment Court:        Environment Court of NZ where road closure proceedings are heard.

 

Greenfield:                       It is rural or open land that is being developed for urban purposes for the first time.  http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/plansstrategies/theaucklandplan/Documents/housinglandsupplyfaqs.pdf

 

 

 

 

IFA:                                Infrastructure Funding Agreement.

 

ITP:                                Integrated Transport Programme.

 

 

Legal Road:                                The LGA 1974/2002 defines a road here.

 

LGOIMA                          The Local Government Official Information Act

                                       Refer http://www.legislation.govt.nz

LGA 1974:                       Local Government Act 1974

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0084/latest/DLM170873.html / 2002

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1974/0066/latest/DLM415532.html?search=qs_act%40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_Local+Government+Act+1974_resel_25_h&p=1&sr=1Available

Notice of closure:           notice of road closure prepared in accordance with the Local Government Act 1974.

 

OPEX:                                        Operational expenditure/expense. The ongoing cost for running a product, business, or system.

 

Private benefit:                           A positive economic, social, environmental, or other outcome for the private sector or a non-public interest, company, individual, or organisation as a result from a development that enhance private interests whilst excluding public interests or public access.

 

Proposal:                        This policy refers to a proposal in terms of a development proposal (residential, industrial, commercial) put forward to AT / AC for formal consideration.

Public benefit:                            A positive outcome for the general public as a result from a development that is perceived to enhance an economic, social, environmental, or other factor at a local or regional level.  

 

 

Strategic fit:                                Means that the proposal supports and enables Auckland Plan and PAUP priorities, supports integration between land use and transport, transport effectiveness and efficiency.

 

Urban design best

practice:                                     The Auckland Design Manual provides design guidance and the Ministry for the Environment Urban Design Protocol establishes principles for assessing whether a development is sound.

 

Urban development:       The social and political process that involves development or improvement of an urban area by building [residential, mixed use, business or industrial].

 

 

9       References

AT’s code of practice

 

10     Appendices

Appendices will be loaded separately onto the policy document repository and hyperlinked by URL back to the originating document.

Appendix A: AT  officer delegations and AT Board governance structure

Appendix B: Auckland Council officer delegations and governance structure

11     Approval Agency

Senior Management – Tier 2 managers from AT and DPO have endorsed this policy.

[ELT]

 

12     Policy Sponsor

General Manager DPO

 

13     Contact People

The following people may be approached on a routine basis in relation to this policy:

Alina Wimmer, DPO

Fiona Docherty Wright, DPO

Don Munro, AT

Deborah Godinet, AT

 


Planning Committee

29 November 2016

 

Summary of Planning Committee information memos and briefings - 29 November 2016

 

File No.: CP2016/23434

 

  

 

Purpose

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

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 memo was circulated to members on:

·    22 November 2016:         Special Housing Areas established under the Auckland Housing Accord 2013-2016 - background information for the Auckland Housing Accord Extension report.

4.       This document can 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 “Planning Committee” from the drop-down tab and click ‘View’;

o under ‘Attachments’, select either the 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 the items referred to in this summary. Committee members should direct any questions to the authors.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      receive the summary of information memos and briefings – 29 November 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

29 November 2016 - Planning Committee - Memo - Special Housing Areas established under the Auckland Housing Accord 2013-2016 (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Signatories

Author

Elaine Stephenson - Advisor - Governance Support

Authoriser

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

     

    



[1] Housing Legislation Amendment Bill Explanatory Note, published 7/9/16, accessed 2/11/16 https://www.beehive.govt.nz/sites/all/files/Housing%20Legislation%20Amendment%20Bill%202016.pdf