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

 

Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Tuesday, 5 September 2017

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, CNZM, JP

Cr Wayne Walker

 

IMSB Member Hon Tau Henare

Cr John Watson

 

Cr Richard Hills

 

 

Cr Penny Hulse

 

 

Cr Mike Lee

 

 

(Quorum 11 members)

 

 

 

Kalinda  Gopal

Governance Advisor

 

31 August 2017

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 367 2442

Email: kalinda.gopal@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

05 September 2017

 

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

5.1     Public Input - Auckland Branch of the New Zealand Society of Authors - Displaying poetry in bus shelters and public transport                                                     7

5.2     Public Input - Charlotte Fisher - Future of the Tank Farm                              7

5.3     Public Input - Generation Zero - Linear Park                                                    8

6          Local Board Input                                                                                                          8

6.1     Local Board Input - Waitematā Local Board - City centre and waterfront planning refresh                                                                                                                   8

7          Extraordinary Business                                                                                                8

8          Notices of Motion                                                                                                          9

9          City centre and waterfront planning refresh                                                            11

10        Auckland Plan Refresh - Proposed monitoring framework                                   25

11        Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Private Plan Change Request  from Karaka and Drury Limited - Auranga B1                                                                                33

12        Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Private Plan Change Request by Fletcher Residential Limited - Three Kings                                                                           191

13        Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Proposed Plan Change - Whenuapai 317

14        Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Proposed Plan Change - Administrative Plan Change                                                                                                                        359

            Due to the size and complexity of some of the atachments they are avaiable under separate cover on the Auckland Council website at the following link: http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/

15        Summary of Planning Committee information memos and briefings - 5 September 2017                                                                                                                                     455  

16        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

17        Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public                                                               457

C1       Auckland Unitary Plan:  Council Position for High Court Appeal and Judicial Review on Weiti Precinct                                                                                                             457  

 


1          Apologies

 

An apology from Cr L Cooper has been received.

 

2          Declaration of Interest

 

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

 

3          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Planning Committee:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 1 August 2017, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

 

 

4          Petitions

 

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

 

5          Public Input

 

Standing Order 7.7 provides for Public Input.  Applications to speak must be made to the Governance 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.

 

5.1       Public Input - Auckland Branch of the New Zealand Society of Authors - Displaying poetry in bus shelters and public transport

Purpose

1.       Ian Free will address the committee regarding displaying New Zealand poetry in bus shelters and public transport, highlighting how other cities around the world have successfully undertaken this work.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      receive the presentation regarding displaying poetry in bus shelters and public transport and thank Ian Free for his attendance.

 

 

 

5.2       Public Input - Charlotte Fisher - Future of the Tank Farm

Purpose

1.       Charlotte Fisher will address the committee regarding the future of the Tank Farm, presenting an alternative concept named “the Tank” by Simon Shepheard. 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      receive the presentation from Charlotte Fisher regarding the future of the Tank Farm and thank her for her attendance.

 

 

 

5.3       Public Input - Generation Zero - Linear Park

Purpose

1.       Leroy Beckett will address the committee regarding the importance of and support for Linear Park.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      receive the presentation regarding Linear Park and thank Leroy Beckett for his attendance. 

 

 

 

6          Local Board Input

 

Standing Order 6.2 provides for Local Board Input.  The Chairperson (or nominee of that Chairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this time.  The Chairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall wherever practical, give one (1) day’s notice of their wish to speak.  The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.

 

This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 6.1 to speak to matters on the agenda.

 

6.1       Local Board Input - Waitematā Local Board - City centre and waterfront planning refresh

Purpose

1.       Waitematā Local Board Deputy Chair, Shale Chambers, will make a presentation to the Planning Committee regarding the city centre and waterfront planning refresh at the item.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      thank Waitematā Local Board Deputy Chair, Shale Chambers, for his presentation regarding the city centre and waterfront planning refresh and thank him for his attendance.

 

 

 

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

 

There were no notices of motion.

 


Planning Committee

05 September 2017

 

City centre and waterfront planning refresh

 

File No.: CP2017/17714

 

  

 

Purpose

·    To approve the updated implementation plans for the City Centre Master Plan and the Waterfront Plan;

·    To support, in principle, the Auckland Transport bus solutions;

·    To recommend the city centre and waterfront plans to the Finance and Performance Committee for funding and prioritisation in the Auckland Council 2018-2028 Long-term Plan.

Executive summary

1.       A cross-Council team is working on refreshed implementation planning to deliver the 2012 City Centre Master Plan and the Waterfront Plan. Both spatial plans were part of a suite of place-based plans that came out of the Auckland Plan.

2.       The refreshed planning maintains the vision and direction of both plans, and focuses on the next phase of delivery for the downtown waterfront corridor, mid-town area, central wharves and Wynyard Quarter.  These focus areas are critical parts of Auckland’s city centre and waterfront, and all have high visibility and public interest, with competing demands and immense pressure on space.  All are key to unlocking growing expectations for public transport, waterfront access and high quality public realm.

3.       The implementation planning is based on lessons learned from a decade of successful project delivery and a better understanding of the challenges of development in the city centre and waterfront, the complexities of the project interdependencies and the construction sequencing.

4.       For the downtown and waterfront corridor area, a programme of high quality transport and streetscape projects has been developed, focusing on

·   Improved public transport to the east and west

·   A pedestrian-focused core of Lower Queen Street and central Quay Street

·   Coordination of Auckland Council and private sector led developments, and

·   Coordination of transport and streetscape projects

These are able to be delivered in co-ordination with the construction and completion of the City Rail Link, major private sector developments, and necessary upgrades of the Quay Street seawall, to enable a high quality waterfront which will be especially important for upcoming major events.

5.       Similarly in the mid-town area, a coordinated way forward will:

·   deliver two great city streets, on both Victoria Street and Wellesley Street

·   enable the staged delivery of the Victoria Street linear park

·   provide for Wellesley Street to be the main east-west bus corridor

These complementary projects can be delivered in co-ordination with City Rail Link construction, provide for significant growth in pedestrian movement and support wider city centre public and private developments.

6.       Accommodating the significant increase in pedestrian and cycle movements along the waterfront corridor through the Viaduct will require:

·   the removal of public parking in the Eastern Viaduct

·   an upgrade to the urban realm on Eastern Viaduct and Te Wero island

·   an improved bridge connection from downtown to North Wharf

7.       The programme of short and long term initiatives in the central wharves area will:

·   enable the competing demands for additional water and land space for ferries and cruise to be met

·   facilitate the delivery of additional public open spaces, including the downtown public space to replace Queen Elizabeth Square, and the further development of Queens Wharf

·   provide a hub for water based tourist services

·   complement and build on the transport and streetscape projects in the downtown area

8.       In the short term, the provision of a mooring dolphin on Queens Wharf will enable the relocation of ferry piers 3 & 4 for the downtown public spaces project, but with minimal provision for growth in ferry services. The timing of implementation of further ferry berths will require agreement on the long term location for cruise berths, with the optimal location of Captain Cook Wharf for cruise infrastructure subject to negotiation with Ports of Auckland Limited.

9.       For Wynyard Quarter, key drivers for the refresh include:

·   updated information about the strategic and operational demands for parks and events

·   updated information about the growth of the city centre (employment, visitors, residents)

·   major transport proposals

·   lessons learned from the regeneration of Wynyard Central, in particular the costs of construction on former industrial sites

·   the need to create more feasible development packages, in order that returns from private development can contribute to the costs of public infrastructure and open space

10.     The preferred direction proposes a realignment of the Wynyard Point park, connected to the Daldy Street linear park and Victoria Park, creating a sequence of open spaces for recreation and events, and delivering more rational development sites for private investment. This will require a future plan change.

11.     The projects outlined are all critical to delivering on the goals and outcomes of the City Centre Master Plan and Waterfront Plan.  There is a growing body of evidence that demonstrates how investment in the city centre, with the highest concentration of economic activity in New Zealand, is critical to attracting further jobs and investment that support the whole region.

12.     The proposed funding and delivery scenarios are to be interrogated and tested during the Long-term Plan process. Priority projects will be supported by business cases, including a total value analysis.  Once decisions have been made, they will be incorporated into the Long Term Plan public consultation.

13.     The preferred directions have been informed by preliminary discussions with key stakeholders.  Further consultation and engagement will follow as appropriate for each project, once funding and project timing is confirmed.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      approve the updated implementation of the City Centre Master Plan and Waterfront Plan to incorporate:

i)        Downtown - the proposed coordinated delivery of high quality streets, in particular Quay Street, to support private and public development and events, with high quality public transport to the east and west

 

ii)       Waterfront corridor – enhancements to the public realm in the Viaduct, including removal of public parking from the Eastern Viaduct, and a replacement Wynyard Crossing bridge on the same alignment for walking and cycling

iii)      Midtown streets –the proposed coordinated delivery of two great city streets, the Wellesley Street ‘bus boulevard’ and Victoria Street linear park

iv)      Central wharves –the proposed staged delivery of additional waterfront public space and new ferry infrastructure, and the need for further cruise infrastructure in the medium-long term and noting:

·    that the transition of Captain Cook Wharf to a cruise terminal and berths remains the optimal option to deliver the economic benefit from growth of the cruise industry but remains subject to negotiation with the Ports of Auckland Limited;

·    the long term masterplan for Queens Wharf as a key public and event space will need to be staged with projects such as the ferry terminal, cruise infrastructure and the removal of the Cloud;

·    that the Ports of Auckland Limited will be invited to a Planning Committee workshop in the near future to outline its development proposals for port land in the short to medium term, including its proposal for Captain Cook Wharf.

v)      Wynyard Quarter – the realignment of Wynyard Point open space, to accommodate a regional destination park and to provide for more optimal development blocks, and notes that this will require a future plan change

b)      support, in principle, the Auckland Transport preferred bus solutions, including:

i)        Wellesley Street as the predominant east-west bus corridor

ii)       Bus facilities in Lower Albert Street and Quay Street East

iii)      New “University Station” in Grafton Gully

subject to further consultation, investigation and completion of business cases

c)      recommend the updated implementation of the City Centre Master Plan and Waterfront Plan, as noted in a) above, to the Finance and Performance Committee for funding prioritisation discussions within the 2018 -2028 Auckland Council Long Term Plan.

d)      note that there will be public consultation as part of Long-term Plan discussions on significant investments, and that there will be more detailed engagement for each project at the appropriate time in its planning and delivery.

e)      notes that work is progressing on potential locations for the proposed America’s Cup event, which may have a material impact on waterfront planning, delivery and funding commitments, but this awaits further announcements from central government and Emirates Team New Zealand, together with consequential council decisions.

f)       note that a separate report on the Port Future Study will be reported to the Planning Committee in October 2017.

 

 


 

Comments

Background

14.     Auckland’s city centre is an increasingly important ‘economic engine’ for both the region and the whole of New Zealand. The city centre produces 20 percent of the region’s economic value (as measured by GDP) due, in part, to the concentration of skilled and highly productive jobs. Auckland is following the international trend of highly skilled workers seeking out vibrant, mixed use city centres in which to work – and often to live and play nearby.

15.     The rapid increase in workers and residents is transforming the way people use the city. There are more people on city streets, spending more time and doing more things. Aucklanders have embraced this re-emergence of public life across the city centre.

16.     The 2012 City Centre Master Plan (CCMP) signalled the need for public transport investments that support the dynamic business ecosystem of walkable streets, public spaces, and activities such as cafés and restaurants. Current and future transport investment like the City Rail Link and mass transit, will dramatically improve the accessibility of the city centre across the region.

17.     The 2012 Waterfront Plan provided a strategic approach to redevelopment of the city centre waterfront, which is seeing the Wynyard Quarter being transformed from an industrial area to a well-used and much-loved part of Auckland's waterfront.

18.     The refresh of both of these plans is focussing on the downtown and Viaduct waterfront corridor, the central wharves, mid-town and the Wynyard Quarter.  The downtown area in particular is a valued area with multiple competing demands – spatial and operational - on both land and water space.

19.     The Planning Committee, the Waitematā Local Board and the City Centre Advisory Board have contributed to a series of workshops that outlined the complex issues and interdependencies for these key parts of the city centre. The direction from the workshops was the need for holistic and integrated planning and decision-making, and the importance of creating a legacy for Aucklanders.

20.     Key points made at the workshop series were:

·   The need to articulate the broader justification, economic and public benefits for investment in infrastructure, particularly for cruise, super-yachts, public open space and for major events such as the America’s Cup

·   An understanding of the trade-offs and balances needed as the City Centre Masterplan and Waterfront Plan progress to implementation

·   The competing demands on street and water spaces in downtown and mid-town, with a need to focus on the sequencing of projects and ensuring that projects contribute to the long term vision

·   A focus on the pedestrian realm and catering for greater numbers of public transport users and providing an opportunity to deliver improved Victoria and Wellesley Streets

·   The opportunity to achieve multiple outcomes such as resolving stormwater issues at the same time as upgrading of the sea wall

·   Inter-dependencies of water uses such as where continued growth of ferry and cruise operations in the central wharves impact on port operations, reinforcing the need to progress the Port Future Study and align planning for the Port.

Assumptions

21.     In order to compare options and identify preferred directions, a series of assumptions were made based on the best available information about transport, cruise, open spaces and what is known about proposed events in 2020/2021, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting and America’s Cup. 

22.     Auckland Transport’s strategic city centre planning assumes that all growth in city centre access will be accommodated by public transport and active modes (walking and cycling). Traffic volumes have remained static for a decade and it is expected that traffic levels will diminish in the core of the city centre as more space is provided for pedestrians, public transport and the public realm. 

23.     Strong ongoing growth in public transport is only able to occur if targeted capacity improvements are provided – through additional space and facilities for buses and additional space for ferries.

24.     There is commitment to replace the former Queen Elizabeth Square with further public open spaces on the waterfront, initially at the Ferry Basin and at a later stage, Admiralty Basin.

25.     Any redevelopment of Quay Street and the downtown area requires replacement of aging infrastructure, including an upgrade of the sea wall.

26.     Consistent with the Port Future Study it is assumed that Auckland will continue to provide for the cruise industry on the city centre waterfront and will provide infrastructure to accommodate both the growth in ship visits and the size of vessels. The mooring dolphin off Queens Wharf will accommodate cruise and ferry requirements for 5 to 10 years but further growth, the requirements for increased water-space for ferries, and for increased public use of the waterfront, will require a long term view of the location of cruise infrastructure.

27.     It is assumed that pending any further action on the Port Future Study, the ports’ short/medium-term operational requirements need to be met.  A further workshop and discussion on the Ports Future Study will explore the short and long-term implications.

28.     There is an expectation for the further development of Queens Wharf for public use and for events with the eventual removal of the Cloud. 

29.     It is assumed that Auckland will host the America’s Cup and APEC in 2021, with implications for the timing of infrastructure and the operation of the city. An integrated and considered process for assessing the location options for event infrastructure is underway with an emphasis on the legacy value for Auckland, functionality for the events and deliverability within the tight timeframes.

30.     Matters related to harbour water quality are critical to the waterfront and this work is being developed and led through the Environment and Community Committee.

Downtown and Waterfront Corridor

31.     A coordinated programme of transport and streetscape projects has been developed for the Downtown area, based around a pedestrian-focused core supported by quality public transport to the east and west, and integrated with waterfront planning.

32.     New high quality facilities for bus customers are proposed in Lower Albert St for Northern and North-western Busway services, and a new Quay Street East facility for Isthmus and some Eastern services.  These two facilities remove the need for buses to operate in Lower Queen Street and the central core of Quay Street enabling these to become high quality pedestrian-focused spaces developed in collaboration with adjacent private sector developments. These spaces will therefore be able to be closed to host major waterfront or civic events, whilst the nearby bus services can continue to bring in customers for those events and ongoing city centre activities.

33.     Additional streetscape improvements along Quay Street, building upon the City Centre Master Plan aspirations for a waterfront boulevard, will be based around the central pedestrian-focused core of Lower Queen Street and Queens Wharf, along the northern promenade and in co-ordination with major private sector developments such as Commercial Bay and the Britomart precinct. An upgrade of the Quay Street seawall is an essential enabling component to create a high quality waterfront for people.

34.     Funding is in place for the Auckland Transport bus projects but a realignment of or addition to budgets for other projects will be required.

35.     The growth in pedestrian and cycle movement along the waterfront corridor from downtown to Wynyard Quarter will be met by an upgrade of the public space including the removal of public parking on Eastern Viaduct. Replacement of the Wynyard Crossing bridge will be required to cater for the significant and fast growing pedestrian and cyclist use, and to provide a resilient and cost effective connection.

Midtown

36.     Significant progress has been made in developing a coordinated way forward for the Midtown area, which will overcome previous programme conflicts to deliver two great city streets on both Victoria Street and Wellesley Street.

37.     Concerns were raised during previous public consultation by Auckland Transport on Midtown bus route options that there was conflict between transport and streetscape planning.  Auckland Transport has addressed these concerns by developing a new ‘crossover’ bus route option which retains major bus services on Wellesley Street and avoids the need for these on Victoria Street. This enables the staged delivery of the Victoria St linear park.

38.     The ‘crossover’ arrangement swaps some major bus route groups using Symonds Street so that no turning is required (the East-West and North-South services simply ‘crossover’ each other). Some current Midtown services will therefore access Britomart, whilst some current Britomart services will instead cross Midtown to Wynyard Quarter. Wellesley St will become a high quality ‘bus boulevard’, supported by a new ‘University Station’ in Grafton Gully.  Wellesley Street and Victoria Street will both be busy pedestrian areas surrounded by important city centre activities, and AT and Council are committed to developing them both into great city streets.

39.     These two complementary projects are to be delivered in co-ordination with planned City Rail Link construction on both streets, and in support of wider city centre public and private developments, such as future mass transit, the NZ International Convention Centre and ongoing development of the Learning Quarter. Further consultation will occur for bus customers and with stakeholders and the public in relation to street design.

40.     Auckland Transport has funding in place for the core bus project (however the station elements of the ‘crossover’ option is likely to see the need for an increase) and there is partial funding for the Victoria Street linear park, but additional and earlier funding is required to develop both corridors to become the high quality pedestrian spaces they need to be.

Central Wharves

41.     The central wharves area is Auckland’s key waterfront gateway linking public uses with regional public transport infrastructure, visitor infrastructure and premium commercial development. The success of waterfront upgrades, including the opening of Queens Wharf for waterfront public space and the increasing numbers of major events, combined with the continued growth of ferry usage and of cruise ship visits, is all occurring in a constrained spatial environment.

42.     Implementing previous agreements to develop further downtown waterfront public open space will require ferry berths 3 and 4 to be relocated. Space for the relocated ferry berths will be available when the mooring dolphin is completed and the programme for delivery of the new open space will be dependent on the upgrading of the existing seawall.

43.     Development of the ferry terminal to cater for the projected doubling of ferry services and patronage by 2025 is reliant on the provision of additional ferry berths and a change of operating practice to increase efficiency. The proposed reconfiguration along the western side of Queens Wharf will impact on the small cruise ship berth that is currently located there.

44.     The downtown public space on the Ferry Basin, the first phase of an agreed replacement for Queen Elizabeth Square, is dependent on the relocation of ferry services currently berthing at Piers 3 and 4 and investment in the long term Ferry Strategy. 

45.     Cruise ship visits have grown from 42 in 2006 to over 100 in 2016 and are projected to increase to over 200 by 2030 and provide significant growth in economic benefit to Auckland’s economy. The current cruise berths are not long enough to cater for the larger cruise ships which increasingly visit Auckland.

46.     Whilst the Queens Wharf mooring dolphin will allow longer ships to berth in the short term, the provision of cruise infrastructure in the medium term which is efficient for the increased numbers of ships visiting, the size of those ships and the ability to gain additional economic benefit from exchange and longer stay visits will be necessary.

47.     Consistent with the Port Future Study, further investigation of the options considered in 2015 for future cruise ship infrastructure has confirmed that the transition of Captain Cook wharf for cruise use is the optimal outcome, delivering efficiencies and enabling Queens Wharf and the ferry terminal to grow and develop. This option minimises the negative impacts on the city centre, integrates with city transport hubs and optimises facilities with berths on two sides. The required extension of Captain Cook wharf is within the Port precinct.  We are aware of other stakeholder views and other options are available if this does not prove possible, but none have the same benefits. Any transition of Captain Cook wharf to cruise use is dependent on negotiations with the Port of Auckland Limited.

48.     The long term masterplan for Queens Wharf as a key public and event space will need to be staged as opportunity is provided by the completion of related projects such as the ferry terminal and cruise infrastructure. It is anticipated that the Cloud will be removed to enable the development of the western side of Queens Wharf for recreational and outdoor event use, with the further facilities provided on the eastern side to complement Shed 10. 

49.     Whilst funding is available for the seawall and public space projects, additional funds and a realignment of existing allocations will need be considered for other projects, including the ferry terminal, in the 2018-28 Long-term Plan.

Wynyard Quarter

50.     Panuku Development Auckland has reviewed existing planning for Wynyard Quarter, including the Viaduct Basin.  The planning refresh has been driven in part by the changing context around the city centre and waterfront, major transport proposals (including mass rapid transit), and by lessons learned from the regeneration of former industrial sites in Wynyard Central in particular. In the decade since earlier plans were proposed, Council has also clarified its requirements for a regional destination park on the waterfront to provide for visitors and events, and to mitigate the deficit in open spaces for a rapidly growing city centre population.

51.     The planning refresh took into account revised strategic and operational demands for both passive recreation and for larger events, with the need to improve visibility and access to the headland park for both visitors and locals.  Given the high cost of construction and remediation of former industrial sites, there was also a need to create more rational development blocks, to improve returns to Council and to support the investment in public infrastructure (such as sea walls, streets and open spaces).

52.     The preferred direction proposes a realignment of the Wynyard Point park, connected to the existing Daldy Street linear park and Victoria Park, creating a sequence of open spaces for recreation and events, and delivering more optimal development sites for private investment. This will require a future plan change to update the open space designation.

53.     A “signature public building” on the Wynyard Point park, identified as an opportunity in the Waterfront Plan 2012, is not being recommended in favour of the regional scale open space, necessary to meet the needs of the future city centre population. This does not preclude the opportunity for smaller cultural or community facilities within the park, or in other locations (for example, Silo Park or activating the linear park), nor foreclose it as a long term option. In addition no specific demand for facilities nor budget has been identified for a signature public building at this time.

54.     The existing Wynyard Point leaseholders are due to depart from 2022 – 2025, when it is proposed to commence the development of the park, as this will add value to the future development sites. As previously noted, delivery options including timing and funding will be evaluated in the Long-term Plan discussions.

55.     As noted in the waterfront corridor above, the preferred direction for improving the connection from downtown to Wynyard Quarter is to replace the Wynyard Crossing (interim bridge) with a new bridge on the same alignment, supported by an additional link bridge (alongside the current heritage Bascule bridge) to provide an additional point of egress and exit.  With the improvements planned along the Eastern Viaduct (removal of carparks) and increased space for pedestrian, cyclists and for events and small activations, the gateway to the Wynyard Quarter will deliver on the ‘public’ and ‘connected’ waterfront goals.

America’s Cup – accelerated scenarios

56.     Work is underway in conjunction with central government, key stakeholders and Emirates Team New Zealand to scope critical infrastructure necessary to successfully hold America’s Cup events in late 2020 and 2021. The assessment of potential team base locations is focusing on the functionality for the event as well as the potential legacy for Auckland.

57.     All options for Cup bases are currently under investigation, including Halsey Wharf.  An extension to Halsey Wharf is signalled in the Waterfront Plan for possible delivery in 2032-2042 decade.  At this point, there is no change to this timing.

58.     Decisions on the location of required event infrastructure and announcements on governance, legislation and funding may impact on the sequencing of downtown and waterfront projects outlined above.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

59.     Members of Waitematā Local Board have attended elected member workshops on city centre waterfront planning in March and August. A further local board workshop on 12 April reviewed waterfront planning issues from Westhaven to the central wharves, including the open space options for Wynyard Quarter. In terms of Wynyard Quarter, discussion at that workshop raised queries about proposed spaces for events, the process for naming future streets and public spaces, and the proposed reconfiguration of Te Wero island.

60.     The board is aware that Panuku is working with Council’s Community Services team on the strategic rationale, brief for services, and the potential implementation process for open spaces, community and cultural facilities, and events. The board is also aware that there is some time before the existing industrial uses depart the tank farm and detailed planning and engagement can begin, dependant on the timing of funding in the 2018 – 2028 Long-term Plan.

61.     Auckland Transport has begun project-specific engagement with the board, such as the Midtown bus options, and plans to continue this as more detail emerges and coordinate with other city centre projects on joint engagement.

Auckland City Centre Advisory Board

62.     At a recent workshop on these matters, the Auckland City Centre Advisory Board noted that there needs to be a holistic approach to water and land planning, in collaboration with Ports of Auckland Limited, and a clear view on the allocation of costs and benefits of cruise infrastructure. It also noted that landward impacts, such as on traffic generation, need to be taken into account, particularly if cruise ship berths are distributed beyond the central wharves area.


 

63.     Regarding the realignment of the Wynyard Point open space, the board generally supported the proposed move, and noted the need to engage with Aucklanders on the park’s design and development, and to reflect the city’s diversity in the new spaces and activities. There was support for delivering the park as soon as practicable.

64.     The board also noted that any future discussion on America’s Cup needs to recognise the legacy benefits, and avoid short-term or interim solutions. 

65.     The minutes of the 23 August 2017 business meeting are attached.  They note the board’s support for the co-ordinated approach to the downtown and mid-town bus, and the need to balance the place quality with transport demands. The board also noted its support for the use of Captain Cook for cruise, and request further information on the headland park and relationship of open space and potential cruise options.

Māori impact statement

66.     The Panuku Mana Whenua Forum have been engaged in the waterfront planning refresh. The Forum adopted a Project Charter, including Mana Whenua goals and a cultural narrative, to inform the next phases of waterfront planning.

67.     Mana Whenua have made a significant contribution to the planning, design and development across the waterfront, most recently in Wynyard Central. Panuku and the council whanau will continue to work with mana whenua on the next phases of planning, design and delivery across the waterfront.

68.     Auckland Transport has begun project-specific engagement with iwi through an existing iwi liaison forum and will continue to coordinate this with other city centre projects and their tailored iwi engagement. 

69.     The Panuku Mana Whenua Forum has noted that it is difficult to make comment on detailed implementation of waterfront projects while there are unresolved Treaty of Waitangi claims, and applications for a protected customary right or customary marine title under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011.

Implementation

70.     The transformation of Auckland’s city centre and waterfront has required significant council investment in planning, infrastructure and the public realm. The next twenty years will require a similar level of commitment to investment in public infrastructure, in to attract continued private development that will deliver a sustainable and inclusive city centre. As much as anything this is a reflection of the success of existing strategies.

71.     Staff will provide scenarios for funding decisions as part of the Long-term Plan discussions.  This will enable council to understand the interdependencies of projects in order to decide which projects to prioritise and fund in the 2018-2028 Long-term Plan.  

72.     It is anticipated that the first phase of public engagement will be around the 2018-2028 Long-term Plan, when council will be consulting on its funding priorities and 10-year programme, including all the city centre and waterfront projects.

73.     There will be more detailed consultation and engagement for each project at the appropriate time in its planning and delivery stages, once funding and project timing is confirmed.


 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Images of changes to the implementation plans of the City Centre Master Plan and Waterfront Plan

21

b

Auckland City Centre Advisory Board Minutes 23 August 2017

23

      

Signatories

Authors

Joanna Smith – Senior Project Planning Leader, Panuku

John Smith – Project Manager Cruise, Panuku/ATEED

Daniel Newcombe – City Centre and RTN Initiatives Manager, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

David Rankin - Chief Operating Officer, Panuku

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

05 September 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2017/09/PLA_20170905_ATT_6725_PLANS.htm#PDF3_Attachment_55163_10 PDF Creator


Planning Committee

05 September 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

05 September 2017

 

Auckland Plan Refresh - Proposed monitoring framework

 

File No.: CP2017/17479

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To agree to the proposed monitoring framework for measuring progress towards the outcomes of the Auckland Plan.

Executive summary

2.       An effective monitoring framework that measures progress towards Auckland Plan outcomes is fundamental to the ongoing implementation of the plan and understanding the impact being made.  The monitoring framework contributes to an “evidential base to support decision making for Auckland, including evidence of trends, opportunities, and constraints within Auckland” as required under Section 79(4)c of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Act 2010.

3.       The monitoring framework will also be used as a basis for aligning implementation plans, council’s regulatory plans and funding programmes as required under Section 79(3)d of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Act 2010. This occurs through measures (a component of the monitoring framework) that link the strategic outcomes of the plan to the funding and operations of council. 

4.       There are two main components of the proposed monitoring framework:

i)        A limited number of measures aligned to Auckland Plan outcomes, strategic directions and focus areas that will measure ongoing progress across the plan. This includes measures to monitor progress against the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity (NPSUDC).

ii)       A small group of targets aligned to the measures that set priorities for up to a 10 year timeframe.

5.       Where possible, existing measures and monitoring reports, such as the State of the Environment Report, Māori Report and reports generated by other stakeholders, will be used. This will help avoid duplication and maximise existing data sources and analysis.

6.       It is recommended that progress against Auckland Plan measures and targets be reported annually through a score card approach.  Every three years a more detailed report analysing how measures are tracking will be prepared.  To provide broader context, this analysis will draw upon other data, reports and monitoring frameworks outside of the Auckland Plan, and timed to inform Long-term Plans.  

7.       A workshop on the proposed monitoring framework was held with central government representatives on Monday 28 August and with the Planning Committee, including local board representatives, on Wednesday 30 August. Feedback from these workshops will be tabled at the committee meeting.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      approve the monitoring framework approach to measure progress against Auckland Plan outcomes and meet monitoring requirements of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity.

 

Comments

Proposed monitoring framework

8.       The current Auckland Plan has 91 targets and 283 specific actions aligned to 13 strategic directions, which have no direct relationship to its 7 outcomes.

9.       Key issues with the current Plan’s monitoring framework have informed the proposed approach to measure progress against the refreshed Auckland Plan outcomes. Issues include:

·   not all of the existing targets can be measured and the sheer number of targets makes it near impossible to prioritise

·   setting targets without evidence undermines their purpose

·   there is a lack of ownership/buy-in of the targets across keys stakeholders.

10.     In March 2017, the Planning Committee approved the development of a more focussed, streamlined spatial plan. The new monitoring approach must align to this decision and to the outcomes in this refreshed plan.

11.     The proposed approach is to have a limited set of measures that provide a high level indication of progress against Auckland Plan outcomes. This includes measures and targets required under the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity. 

12.     This approach acknowledges that:

·   It is a plan for all of Auckland, not an Auckland Council plan.

·   It addresses the key long-term issues that Auckland faces and therefore does not cover all aspects of council’s and stakeholders business, nor all issues council may wish to advocate on behalf of its communities.

·   Supporting plans and strategies, that sit outside the Auckland Plan, often have their own measures and targets that appropriately delve into more detail. Where relevant, these supporting measures will be incorporated into three yearly reports.

·   Measures and targets are an additional way to prioritise within the plan.

13.     Where possible, Auckland Plan measures will be drawn from existing data sets. Progress against outcomes will be supported by other more detailed reports and monitoring frameworks, such as the State of the Environment Report, Māori report for Tamaki Makaurau 2016, and that of other stakeholders and agencies.

Nature of measures

14.     It is proposed that the suite of measures consists of three types , as per the diagram below:

Type 1: Measures that inform progress across more than one outcome, reflecting the integrated nature of the plan (see housing example – Attachment A)

Type 2: Measures against multiple strategic directions or focus areas within the same outcome.

Type 3: A measure related to a single strategic direction or focus area.

15.     There will be a direct relationship between Auckland Plan measures and council’s contribution towards these measures through its 10-year budget (the Long-term Plan).  This will be achieved through the Long-Term Plan’s own performance management framework.  Based on funding, this framework will set levels of service that align with Auckland Plan measures and outcomes.

16.     It is recommended that progress against Auckland Plan measures and targets be reported annually by way of score-card type reporting. Every three years a more detailed analysis of how and why measures are tracking as they will be prepared. To provide a broader context, this analysis will draw upon data from other reports and monitoring frameworks outside the Auckland Plan. This would be timed to inform council’s Long-term Plans.

17.     To show how the proposed approach will work in practice a small number of example measures were workshopped with the Planning Committee.  If the monitoring approach is approved by committee, staff will work with the Independent Māori Statutory Board secretariat on the development of measures across the outcomes.

18.     Council staff are also working with central government officials on the development of agreed measures, with a particular focus on housing, transport and the supply of business land. These are the three priority areas set out in the terms of reference for engagement on the Auckland Plan between Auckland Council and central government.

19.     Feedback from these discussions will be used to inform the development of a final set of measures for approval at the October Planning Committee meeting.

Inclusion of targets

20.     The current Auckland Plan has 91 targets, which have made implementation and prioritisation of the plan difficult.  For the refreshed plan the monitoring framework proposes that the measures become the main mechanism for evaluating progress towards the plan’s outcomes.  Measures are enduring over the long term whereas targets are not, especially given high level of uncertainty over the 30-years of the Auckland Plan.

21.     Still, targets are helpful to prioritise areas of improvement and investment towards the measures and outcomes.  It is therefore proposed that a small set of targets be developed and included in the Auckland Plan.  It is further proposed that these targets be stretched but achievable, and that they are set for the first ten years of the plan - as opposed to 30-year targets in an uncertain and fast changing context.

22.     As discussed in paragraph 15, council could set further targets (outside the Auckland Plan) through the performance monitoring framework of the Long-Term plan if it so wishes.

23.     Targets will be established by using a few selected measures and applying a specific level of change to be achieved by a specific date. An example of how a measure has been converted into a target is shown below.

24.     Setting targets will require a body of supporting data to evaluate achievability, level and type of contribution and other factors before they can be agreed.

25.     Auckland Plan legislation requires that Auckland Council endeavours to secure and maintain the support and co-operation of central government, infrastructure providers and others. This extends to the setting of measures and targets.

26.     Central government is a significant stakeholder, given it funds much of what is to be achieved across the outcomes.  It is likely that agreement can be reached with central government on measures related to the three priority areas of its Auckland Plan Terms of Reference; transport, housing and business land.  This is because of work already done and/or agreed, for example Auckland Transport Alignment Project or the requirements of the NPSUDC which relate to housing and business land.

27.     However, given the timing of the national election, it is highly unlikely that targets can be agreed with central government prior to the adoption of the draft Auckland Plan in November 2017.  Still, central government officials will be able to discuss targets and provide feedback during February and March 2018.  This will be included in finalising the plan in May/June 2018.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

28.     Local boards have been engaged throughout the development of the draft strategic framework. Local boards chairs have been invited to all Planning Committee workshops on the Auckland Plan refresh, including the 30 August workshop on the monitoring framework.

29.     Where possible, the use of maps for spatially based measures will enable progress against measures to be understood by local board area.  This approach will enable common data, such as travel, construction, employment, education and health metrics, to be used by local boards to assist them in their decision making.

Māori impact statement

30.     There has as yet been no engagement with mana whenua or mataawaka on the proposed monitoring framework.

31.     The Independent Māori Statutory Board secretariat has provided general guidance on the measures and monitoring approach and the potential value of incorporating the Māori Report for Tāmaki Makaurau 2016 measures into the Auckland Plan framework where appropriate.

32.     Te Wakā Angamua and mana whenua will input into the development of the Māori outcome measures during September to early October.

Implementation

33.     The measures will provide the ability to track progress against the outcomes of the Auckland Plan.  This will enable decision makers to identify and prioritise areas in need of improvement.  It will also show where success is happening across Auckland.

34.     Assessment of appropriate interventions to achieve improvement can then be considered by the relevant stakeholders and decision makers.  For council, appropriate interventions could incorporate changes to work programmes, regulatory plans, and funding programmes.

35.     The same applies to other stakeholders and partners. Progress against the outcomes will inform their plans and funding programmes and secure their contribution to achieving the Auckland Plan outcomes.  This is in many cases far more substantial than the council’s contribution.

36.    

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Housing Example

31

     

Signatories

Authors

Richard Hughes - Team Leader Auckland Plan

Authorisers

Denise O’Shaughnessy - Manager Strategic Advice

Jacques  Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

05 September 2017

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

05 September 2017

 

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Private Plan Change Request  from Karaka and Drury Limited - Auranga B1

 

File No.: CP2017/13595

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To consider the council’s response to a private plan change request from Karaka and Drury Limited to rezone land in the Drury area west of State Highway 1 and north of State Highway 22 (currently zoned Future Urban in the Auckland Unitary Plan) to Mixed Housing Urban and Mixed Housing Suburban zones.

Executive summary

2.       This report considers a private plan change request (the request) received on 9 June 2017 from Karaka and Drury Limited (the applicant). The request seeks to rezone 84.6 hectares of Future Urban zoned land referred to as Auranga B1 (Auranga B1 land) within the Rural Urban Boundary at Drury West to provide for approximately 1300 new dwellings. The Auranga B1 land is immediately adjacent to the existing Bremner Road Special Housing Area identified as the Drury 1 precinct in the Auckland Unitary Plan. The request seeks to:

·   rezone the Future Urban zoned land to Mixed Housing Urban zone and Mixed Housing Suburban zone; and

·   extend the existing Drury 1 precinct (with minor changes) over the Auranga B1 land.

3.       The unique characteristics of this proposal provide the reasons for recommending accepting the private plan change request:

·   the proposal is adjacent to an approved Special Housing Area site (Drury 1 precinct);

·   the applicant has undertaken a structure plan and council staff agree that the most appropriate use of the Auranga B1 land is clearly residential;

·   acceptance of this proposal will not undermine council’s structure plan for the wider Drury-Opeheke area

·   bulk infrastructure can be logically and efficiently provided for the Drury 1 precinct, the Auranga B1 land and parts of the wider Drury area;

·   the proposal will not undermine the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy.

4.       Under clause 25, part 2 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991, the council is required to make a decision to:

·   accept the private plan change request, in whole or in part, and proceed to notify the request, or part of the request, under clause 25 (clause 25(2)(b)); or

·   reject the private plan change request in whole or in part, in reliance on one of the grounds set out in clause 25(4); or

·   adopt the request, or part of the request, as if it were a proposed plan made by the council itself (clause 25(2)(a)); or

·   decide to deal with the request as if it were an application for a resource consent (clause 25(3)).

5.       The private plan change request raises a key strategic question as to whether it is appropriate (in terms of the relevant tests under the Resource Management Act) to accept or adopt a private plan change request in a location where the council is currently preparing (or will soon prepare) a structure plan. Given the unique characteristics of the request, and for the more detailed reasons discussed in this report, it is recommended that the private plan change request is accepted and notified for submissions.

 

 

Recommendations

That the Planning Committee:

a)   agree to accept the private plan change request by Karaka and Drury Limited for Auranga B1 included as Attachment A to the agenda report pursuant to clause 25(2)(b) of Part 2 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 for the following reasons:

i)        the private plan change request proposes rezoning adjacent to and the expansion of an existing Auckland Unitary Plan precinct (the Drury 1 precinct), rather than creating an entirely new area for residential development within the Future Urban zone;

ii)       the private plan change was lodged prior to the council embarking on its own structure planning process for the Drury-Opaheke area and will not compromise that process, as the land subject to the private plan change request is relatively confined, the proposed land use is the most appropriate and will not foreclose the consideration of other appropriate outcomes. In short, the council’s ability to pursue a full range of options for the Drury-Opaheke area through the structure plan process will not be constrained by the private plan change request;

iii)      bulk infrastructure is already proposed to service land within the adjacent Drury 1 precinct and preliminary assessments indicate that this bulk infrastructure can be logically and efficiently designed to service the Auranga B1 land and parts of the wider Drury area;

iv)      accepting the private plan change request will not create a situation where there is a significant disconnect between the zoning in the Auckland Unitary Plan and the delivery of bulk infrastructure; and

v)      the request does not meet the criteria for rejection under clause 25(4) of the First Schedule of the RMA (having regard to relevant case law), and it is more appropriate to accept the request than adopted it or treat it as a resource consent application.

b)   authorise the Manager Central and South Planning to undertake the required notification and statutory processes associated with processing the private plan change request by Karaka and Drury Limited for Auranga B1 pursuant to the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.

 

 

Comments

A         BACKGROUND

Site and Surrounding Area

6.       The Auranga B1 land is located west of Drury township within the Rural Urban Boundary, and is currently zoned Future Urban in the Auckland Unitary Plan. The Auranga B1 land is adjacent to the Drury 1 precinct on the northern side of Bremner Road and the Drury 1 precinct land on the eastern side of Jesmond Road. The Auranga B1 land comprises 84.6 hectares and is bounded by coastline to the north, Jesmond Road to the west, the existing Drury 1 precinct to the east and rural land to the south (see map below).

7.       The majority of the Auranga B1 land has a generally flat contour and is bounded by the estuarine waters of Drury Creek to the north and Oira Creek to the west. The area includes four unnamed streams and two ephemeral streams. The transport network within the private plan change request area contains ‘local’ or ‘minor’ roads, while the wider area includes State Highways 1 and 22, and Great South Road. The Auckland rail corridor lies to the south and east.

Private Plan Change Request

8.       The request was lodged on 9 June 2017 (see Attachment A) and seeks to rezone 84.6 hectares of rural land in the Drury area from Future Urban zone within the Auckland Unitary Plan to Mixed Housing Urban and Mixed Housing Suburban zones to provide for approximately 1300 dwellings. The Mixed Housing Urban zone is a medium density residential zone usually applied to land in close proximity to public transport networks, and provides for three storey development. The Mixed Housing Suburban zone provides flexibility in terms of housing options, but has a two storey height control. The applicant also proposes that the operative Drury 1 precinct, with minor changes, is extended to apply to the Auranga B1 land.

9.       The applicant has provided a comprehensive section 32 evaluation report (see Attachment B) and a wide range of other technical reports. These technical reports include assessments relating to stormwater, flood risk management, wastewater and water, transport and traffic, urban design and landscape, structure planning, cultural effects, archaeology, ecology, earthworks, precinct plan provisions, infrastructure, infrastructure funding and policy analysis.

Auckland Plan

10.     The Auckland Plan is the council’s spatial plan for Auckland and contains a 30-year high level development strategy for the region. The Auranga B1 land is located within the area shown on Map D1 Development Strategy (Aucklandwide) as a “greenfield area for investigation for possible future residential and/or business land”. The Auckland Plan high level development strategy has a core driver to promote a quality compact urban form, with 60-70 percent of all new dwellings over the 30-year development strategy period located within the existing urban area and 30-40 percent in greenfield areas, rural areas and rural and coastal settlements.

Auckland Unitary Plan

11.     The Auckland Unitary Plan is the council’s primary document prepared under the Resource Management Act (the RMA). It contains objectives and policies that refer to the importance of integrating land use planning with infrastructure planning and delivery. To this end, the Auckland Unitary Plan promotes the completion of structure plans as a precursor to plan changes to rezone land within the Future Urban zone. Karaka and Drury Limited have completed a structure plan for the Drury area west of State Highway 1 and provided the broad assessments and specialist reports required by the structure plan guidelines in Appendix 1 of the Auckland Unitary Plan.

Future Urban Land Supply Strategy

12.     The Future Urban Land Supply Strategy is a strategic and proactive approach to delivering land that is ‘ready to go’ (develop) in areas that are zoned Future Urban in the Auckland Unitary Plan. Land identified in the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy is predominantly rural and generally requires new bulk infrastructure to be in place before it can be developed.

13.     The Future Urban Land Supply Strategy was refreshed during 2016/2017 and was adopted at the 4 July 2017 meeting of the Planning Committee. It identifies land within the Drury area to the west of State Highway 1 and north of State Highway 22 (including the Auranga B1 land) as being approximately 1016 hectares with the potential to deliver 6100 to 10,800 dwellings between 2022 and 2026. This land is identified as being able to produce approximately 3450 jobs and characterised by one town and one local centre. The key reasons given for the timing of land release in this area include that:

·   transport and wastewater solutions will be required to be funded, approved and constructed;

·   the area leverages off investment in the existing Special Housing Area at Bremner Road and there is market demand for housing in the area; and

·   potential exists to achieve quality transport outcomes from rail.

14.     In the refreshed Future Urban Land Supply Strategy, land within the Drury area to the west of State Highway 1 (including the Auranga B1 land) is anticipated to be developed as follows:

·   Bremner Road Special Housing Area (approved) 2012-2017;

·   north of State Highway 22 to be development ready from 2022 recognising the need for planned capital expenditure; and

·   south of State Highway 22 in the period 2028-2032.

Bulk Infrastructure

15.     A critical factor to take into account in assessing the request is that bulk and local infrastructure is proposed and timed to be in place for the development of the adjacent Special Housing Area at Bremner Road (within the Drury 1 precinct). The applicant for the private plan change proposes to leverage off this infrastructure to develop the private plan change area now proposed as Auranga B1.

Wastewater

16.     The existing Drury 1 area requires the development of a new trunk wastewater sewer with associated connecting branches. The applicant has had productive discussions with Watercare in relation to this trunk sewer since the approval of the Drury 1 precinct. A new wastewater pump station (known as the Bremner Road pump station) is being built at 207 Bremner Road within the existing Drury 1 precinct area. This pump station is designed to service a population of 10,000 people (which is equivalent to approximately 3000 dwellings). This pump station alone will cover the estimated demand for the existing Drury 1 precinct, together with Stevenson’s Drury South Residential Precinct and Drury South Industrial Precinct (both of which are included in the Auckland Unitary Plan).

17.     As part of the Stage 1 subdivision within the Drury 1 precinct, a land parcel is also being reserved for a future Watercare pump station that can service additional dwellings on top of the 3000 dwellings planned as part of the first pump station. This would enable Watercare to develop a wider wastewater network outside the aforementioned areas.

Water Supply

18.     In terms of water supply, Watercare staff have indicated that the Drury 1 precinct, Stevenson’s Drury South Residential Precinct and Drury South Industrial Precinct, and future catchments including the Drury-Opaheke structure plan and Hingaia areas will be serviced by the proposed 450mm diameter bulk supply point from the existing 1200mm diameter water main located at 103 Flanagan Road, Drury.

19.     Watercare and Veolia are working through a number of possible solutions to ensure security of water supply. At this point there is reliance on one bulk supply point via connection to water sourced from the Waikato River. A possible solution to ensuring a backup water supply is to establish a second bulk supply point with connection to a Hunua water source.

Transport

20.     Transport infrastructure upgrades are required to enable development within the Drury 1 precinct area, and the applicant is in the process of finalising an infrastructure funding agreement to enable the delivery of the relevant upgrades. These upgrades largely unlock the potential of the Auranga B1 land. Additional transport upgrades required to service the Auranga B1 land are likely to be more local in nature.

Stormwater

21.     The applicant proposes to provide all necessary stormwater infrastructure within the Auranga B1 land area. If the private plan change is accepted or adopted, the merit of this proposal can be explored further through the submissions and hearings process.

22.     Further details in relation to the bulk infrastructure requirements within the Drury-Opaheke area are set out in Attachment C.

Drury-Opaheke Structure Plan

23.     At the 1 August 2017 meeting of the Planning Committee, a programme of structure planning was approved. Within that programme, it was agreed that a structure plan for the Drury-Opaheke area should be completed within 12 months. Key strategic issues that will need to be considered during the preparation of the council’s structure plan for the Drury-Opaheke area include:

·   the location of and appropriate number of centres;

·   transport infrastructure, including the location and number of train stations;

·   the location and mix of residential and commercial/industrial land; and

·   the location, size and function of parks, reserves and community facilities.

24.     As previously noted, the applicant has prepared a comprehensive structure plan in accordance with Appendix 1 of the Auckland Unitary Plan. The structure plan was provided to the council with the private plan change request on 9 June 2017, prior to the meeting of the Planning Committee on 1 August 2017.

B         ANALYSIS

Resource Management Act

25.     The process for considering private plan change requests is set out in Part 2 of the First Schedule of the RMA.  A request is made under clause 21 of the First Schedule and is to include the information set out in clause 22 which states that:

·   a request made under clause 21 shall be made to the appropriate local authority in writing and explain the purpose of, and reasons for, the proposed plan or change to a policy statement or plan and contain an evaluation under Section 32 for any objectives, policies, rules, or other methods proposed; and

·   where environmental effects are anticipated, the request shall describe those effects taking into account clauses 6 and 9 of Schedule 4, in such detail as corresponds with the scale and significance of the actual or potential environmental effects anticipated from the implementation of the change, policy, statement or plan.

26.     Under  clause 25 of Part 2 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991, the local authority is required to make a decision to either:

·   reject the private plan change request in whole or in part, in reliance on one of the grounds set out in clause 25(4);

·   decide to deal with the request as if it were an application for a resource consent (clause 25(3));

·   adopt the request, or part of the request, as if it were a proposed plan made by the council itself (clause 25(2)(a)); or

·   accept the private plan change request, in whole or in part, and proceed to notify the request, or part of the request, under clause 25 (clause 25(2)(b)).

27.     See Attachment D for the full wording of clause 25 of Part 2 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.


 

Options available to the council

28.     An assessment of the various options available to the council is provided below.

Option 1 - Reject the private plan change request in whole or in part, in reliance on one of the grounds set out in clause 25(4), Part 2 of the First Schedule

29.     The council has the discretion to reject the private plan change request, in whole or in part, in reliance on one of the grounds set out in clause 25(4), Part 2 of the First Schedule. If the private plan change request is rejected by the council, the applicant is able to appeal the council’s decision to the Environment Court under clause 27 of the First Schedule of the RMA.

30.     The grounds for rejection under clause 25(4) of the First Schedule of the RMA are:

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

b) within the last two years, the substance of the request or part of the request:

vi)      has been considered and given effect to, or rejected by, the local authority or the Environment Court;  or

vii)     has been given effect to by regulations made under section 360A; or

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

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

x)      in the case of a proposed change to a policy statement or plan, the policy statement or plan has been operative for less than two years.

Is the request frivolous or vexatious?

31.     The private plan change request includes a comprehensive section 32 evaluation report and a detailed assessment of environmental effects covering a wide range of issues including storm water management, flood risk, wastewater and water, transport and traffic, structure planning, urban design and landscape, archaeology, ecology, earthworks, infrastructure, infrastructure funding and policy analysis.

32.     The quality of the information lodged and the applicant’s involvement in progressing the existing Bremner Road Special Housing Area (within the Drury 1 precinct) signal a high likelihood of urban development being delivered on the ground. Earthworks have recently commenced in preparation for development in this area.

33.     It is therefore recommended that the council does not reject the private plan change request on the basis that it is frivolous or vexatious.

Has the substance of the request been considered and given effect to or rejected by the council within the last two years?

34.     These provisions largely seek to discourage repetitive private plan change requests that are substantially the same, with the associated costs to the council and the community.

35.     The substance of this private plan change request is the rezoning of 84.6 hectares Future Urban zoned land to Mixed Housing Urban and Mixed Housing Suburban zones to provide for housing. The Future Urban zoning was considered by the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel (the Panel) during the development of the Auckland Unitary Plan, however:

·   the council did not receive any submissions on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan that sought to rezone the private plan change area to Mixed Housing Urban or Mixed Housing Suburban; and

·   the elements associated with the private plan change request to rezone the land for housing were not considered in substance by the Panel.

36.     During 2015, under the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act (HASHAA), the applicant did seek to rezone part of the Auranga B1 land immediately adjacent to the Drury 1 precinct. The request was part of an application to rezone a larger area of land between the Drury 1 precinct and State Highway 22 to the south. The request was rejected for two key reasons:

·   concerns about the impact of the proposed development on existing transport infrastructure; and

·   the need for a structure plan to be prepared for the wider area.

37.     While the HASHAA application did relate to part of the land associated with the current private plan change request, it was a considerably different proposal to the current request for the following reasons:

·   it related to a larger area of land in closer proximity to State Highway 22;

·   the earlier proposal had the potential for considerably greater transport impacts; and

·   the scale and location of the proposal had the potential to foreclose the consideration of more appropriate land use outcomes for the wider area. The current request does not foreclose the consideration of more appropriate land use outcomes.    

38.     While the substance of part of the request has arguably been considered within the past two years, the overall nature of that proposal was considerably different to the current private plan change request, and the same concerns do not arise.

39.     It is therefore recommended that the council does not reject the request on the basis that its substance has been considered and given effect to or rejected by the council within the past two years.

Has the substance of the request been considered and given effect to or rejected by the Environment Court within the last two years, or given effect to by regulations made under section 360A?

40.     The Environment Court has not considered the zoning of the Auranga B1 land within the past two years, nor has the substance of the private plan change request or part of the request been given effect to by regulations made under section 360A of the RMA.

41.     It is therefore recommended that the council does not reject the request on the basis that its substance has been considered and given effect to or rejected by the Environment Court within the last two years, or given effect to by regulations made under section 360A.

Is the request in accordance with sound resource management practice?

42.     The term “sound resource management practice” is an often used planning term but is not defined in the RMA.  The High Court in Malory Corporation Limited v Rodney District Council (CIV-2009-404-005572) considered this term in light of clause 25(4)(c) of the First  Schedule of the RMA and stated:

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

43.     The location proposed for residential dwellings is considered by council planning staff to be the most appropriate response to opportunities and constraints in the area. The private plan change request includes numerous technical reports which all support the proposed plan change. In terms of infrastructure, Auckland Transport and Watercare staff have indicated that the private plan change request is worthy of consideration through the submissions and hearings process. Consultation undertaken with mana whenua to date has not identified any matters that are unable to be resolved.


 

44.     The applicant has, as part of its own structure planning exercise, considered the options for the wider area. The land area decided on for the private plan change request has been carefully scaled and located to ensure the council has the opportunity to consider, as part of its structure plan for the Drury-Opaheke area, key strategic issues such as the number, scale and location of centres, and the location of commercial/industrial land and key transport infrastructure such as rail stations.

45.     While there are aspects of the private plan change request that need to be tested through the submission and hearings process, the scope and extent of the changes sought do not, in themselves, threaten the purpose and principles of the RMA when considered at this preliminary stage. The private plan change request is therefore considered to be in accordance with sound resource management practice.

46.     It is therefore recommended that the council does not reject the private plan change request on the basis that it does not represent sound resource management practice.

Would the request or part of the request make the policy statement or plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA?

47.     Part 5 of the RMA sets out the Act’s sustainable purpose. The Auranga 1 land is currently zoned Future Urban in the Auckland Unitary Plan. The proposal to rezone Future Urban zoned land to Mixed Housing Urban and Mixed Housing Suburban zones in conjunction with necessary structure planning would not make the Auckland Unitary Plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA.

48.     It is therefore recommended that the council does not reject the private plan change request on the basis that the substance of the request would make the Auckland Unitary Plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA.

Has the district plan to which the request relates been operative for less than two years?

49.     The district plan provisions of the Auckland Unitary Plan relevant to this request were made operative on 15 November 2016. The provisions have therefore been operative for less than two years and the council could reject the private plan change request on that basis. However, case law has suggested that this ground for rejection must be exercised on a principled basis having regard to the purpose of the RMA. It is important to note that the wording of clause 25(4) provides the council may reject a private plan change request if one of the grounds under clause 25(4) of the First Schedule of the RMA exists.

50.     Given the specific circumstances of the request, and for reasons previously discussed, it is therefore recommended that the council does not reject the private plan change request on the basis that the relevant parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan have been operative for less than two years.

Option 2 - Decide to deal with the request as if it were an application for a resource consent

51.     The council can, in some circumstances, decide to deal with a private plan change request as if it were an application for resource consent.  However, in this case, the private plan change request seeks to rezone a large area of Future Urban zoned land to provide for housing. As stated in the Auckland Unitary Plan itself, the most appropriate process for enabling development within the Future Urban zone is through structure planning followed by a plan change.

52.     It is therefore recommended that the council does not decide to deal with the request as if it were an application for resource consent.


 

Option 3 - Adopt the request, or part of the request, as if it were a proposed plan made by the council itself

53.     The council could adopt the private plan change request as its own and proceed to notify the request. The council would hold a hearing to consider submissions, and a decision would be made by the council in relation to the proposed plan change in accordance with Schedule 1 of the RMA. The costs associated with the plan change would sit with the council. It is relevant to note that the applicant has not requested that the council adopts the private plan change.

54.     Given that the applicant has not requested that the council adopts the private plan change and the council would accept all costs associated with the plan change if it were adopted, it is not recommended that the council adopts the private plan change request.

Option 4 - Accept the private plan change request, in whole or in part, and proceed to notify the request, or part of the request, under clause 26

55.     The council could accept the private plan change request, in whole or in part, and proceed to notify the request, or part of the request under clause 26 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the RMA.  The council would hold a hearing to consider submissions, and a decision would be made by the council in relation to the private plan change request in accordance with Schedule 1 of the RMA.  The costs associated with the private plan change request would sit with the applicant.

56.     This is the only remaining option and is supported on the basis that the request does not meet the criteria for rejection under clause 25(4) of the First Schedule of the RMA (having regard to relevant case law), and it is more appropriate to accept the request than adopted it or treat it as a resource consent application. In particular:

·   the private plan change request proposes rezoning adjacent to and the  expansion of an existing Auckland Unitary Plan precinct (the Drury 1 precinct), rather than creating an entirely new area for residential development within the Future Urban zone;

·   the private plan change was lodged prior to the council embarking on its own structure planning process for the Drury-Opaheke area and will not compromise that process,  as the land subject to the private plan change request is relatively confined, the proposed land use is the most appropriate and will not foreclose the consideration of other appropriate outcomes. In short, the council’s ability to pursue a full range of options for the Drury-Opaheke area through the structure plan process will not be constrained by the private plan change request;

·   bulk infrastructure is already proposed to service land within the adjacent Drury 1 precinct and preliminary assessments indicate that this bulk infrastructure can be logically and efficiently designed to service the Auranga B1 land and parts of the wider Drury area; and

·   accepting the private plan change request will not create a situation where there is a significant disconnect between the zoning in the Auckland Unitary Plan and the delivery of bulk infrastructure.

57.     It is therefore recommended that the council accepts the private plan change request.

C         SUMMARY OF THE STRATEGIC ISSUES

58.     At the  1 August 2017 Planning Committee meeting it was resolved that “the sequencing for the supply of development-ready greenfield land set out in the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy and the corresponding council-led structure planning programme is paramount in providing for development within the Future Urban zone”. A key question that arises in assessing this private plan change request is therefore whether accepting it will undermine the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy and the council’s structure planning process for the Drury-Opaheke area, and the council’s ability to fund the bulk infrastructure required to service the Drury area.


 

59.     The Future Urban Land Supply Strategy indicates that the Auranga B1 land should be “development ready” in 2022, and that structure planning should generally commence three years prior to this (i.e. 2019), with rezoning occurring immediately thereafter. While slightly ahead of the timing indicated in the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy, the timing is relatively close in the context of the strategy’s 30 year timeframe. Importantly, accepting the private plan change request will not create a situation where there is a significant disconnect between the zoning in the Auckland Unitary Plan and the delivery of bulk infrastructure. On that basis, the private plan change request does not undermine the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy. 

60.     With respect to the council’s structure plan for the Drury-Opaheke area, for reasons previously discussed, the proposed residential land use is the most appropriate option for this particular part of the Drury area and does not foreclose the consideration of other logical options.

61.     In addition to strategic implications for the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy and the council’s structure planning programme, a major strategic issue that must be carefully considered is whether accepting the private plan change request will undermine the logical and efficient provision of bulk infrastructure within the Drury area. As previously discussed, bulk infrastructure can largely be extended from the existing Bremner Road Special Housing Area within the Drury 1 precinct, and the applicant has progressed discussions with Watercare in particular to ensure that the most logical and efficient water and wastewater solutions are enabled for the wider Drury area. These matters (including the apportionment of costs) can be further resolved in parallel with the plan change process.   

62.     A final strategic issue worthy of consideration is funding recently made available by the Government to facilitate development in the Drury area. This funding has the potential to speed up the process for the delivery of bulk infrastructure in the Drury area.

C         CONCLUSION

63.     The Karaka and Drury Limited private plan change request seeks to rezone 84.6 hectares of Future Urban zoned land in Drury West to Mixed Housing Urban and Mixed Housing Suburban zones. Work to support the private plan change request has been ongoing since 2016 and is supported by comprehensive technical reports.

64.     The private plan change, if accepted or adopted, and if successful, would become an extension to the Drury 1 precinct (the Bremner Road Special Housing Area) for which significant infrastructure is proposed that can support the wider development of the Drury area including the private plan change area.

65.     Having carefully assessed the private plan change request against the relevant matters set out in the RMA and associated case law, it is recommended that the request be accepted and notified for submissions. If accepted, a further assessment would take place prior to and during the course of the subsequent hearing. Discussions regarding the provision of bulk infrastructure would progress in parallel with this.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

66.     Karaka and Drury Limited has regularly updated the chair and deputy chair of Franklin Local Board on the private plan change request since June 2016.  Members of the Franklin and Papakura Local Boards have received invitations to open day events and receive newsletters with updates. Both local board chairs have been advised that the private plan change request has been received and informed about the reporting process.


 

67.     Feedback received at the time of writing the report was that the Papakura Local Board members do not support the private plan change request at this time as they consider it premature, and that the development proposed would place significant pressure on existing infrastructure. They have also expressed concerns that the request, if accepted (and when combined with current development existing and proposed in the wider area), would adversely impact on the Drury motorway exchange and infrastructure.

68.     The Franklin Local Board supports in principle the proposed plan change and has advised that:

·   it considers the private plan change request is a logical extension of the existing Special Housing Area and the existing Drury 1 precinct

·   members of the local board are pleased that the plan change seeks to develop a sustainable new community in an area that is well-placed to deliver new centres, jobs and infrastructure improvements

·   the plan change can be progressed alongside work on the Drury-Opaheke structure plan, which is programmed for completion within the next 12 months.

·   the applicant should be advised to seek a partnership approach with the council, through involvement in the preparation of the Drury-Opaheke structure plan in order for the two processes to be complementary.

Maori impact statement

69.     The applicant advises that consultation has been undertaken with Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngati Te Ata and Te Akitai Waiohua in conjunction with the development of the private plan change for Auranga B1. A number of cultural impact assessments have been submitted with the private plan change request. A cultural impact assessment by the Ngāti Tamaoho Trust dated 29 September 2015; a cultural values assessment by Ngati Te Ata dated October 2015; and a cultural impact assessment by Te Akitai Waiohua not dated. All were developed as part of the Bremner Road Special Housing Area process.

70.     The previous consultation by the applicant and cultural impact assessments have identified the following issues as being important to mana whenua:

·   archaeology;

·   stormwater treatment;

·   management of waterways;

·   waste water management;

·   naming opportunities; and

·   natural reserves and the management of nearby off-shore islands.

71.     If the private plan change request is accepted, council staff will engage with mana whenua leading up to the hearing to gain a better understanding of any cultural impacts.

72.     A recent amendment to the RMA (which inserted a new clause 4A to the First Schedule of the Act relating to pre-notification requirements for iwi authorities) places a greater requirement on local authorities to ensure that effective consultation with iwi has occurred prior to notification. The council is now required to provide affected iwi authorities with a copy of the draft plan change prior to notification and provide iwi authorities adequate time and opportunity to consider the plan change. The council must then have particular regard to any advice received on the plan change.

73.     As required by newly inserted section 32(4A) of the RMA, an updated section 32 evaluation report will be required prior to public notification, which summarises the advice received from iwi authorities, summarises the response to the advice, and includes any provisions of the plan change that are intended to give effect to the advice.


 

74.     Ngāti Tamaoho and Ngati Te Ata have indicated a wish to participate in consultation and include any feedback from iwi (as a result of the pre-notification of the draft private plan change). This would be included in an addendum to the cultural impact assessments included in information lodged by the applicant.

Implementation

75.     If the private plan change is accepted for notification, the implementation of this decision will follow the process set out in clause 26 of the First Schedule of the RMA. This requires that the private plan change is notified within four months of being accepted, unless this time frame is waived in accordance with section 37 of the RMA. As previously discussed, the council’s costs associated with processing the private plan change request would be met by the applicant.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A - PPC Auranga B1 text 12 May 2017

47

b

Attachment B - PPC Planning report May 2017

51

c

Attachment C - Drury - extract from Infrastructure Provision Study for Future Urban Areas

181

d

Attachment D - Extract from Clause 25 RMA

189

     

Signatories

Authors

Barry Mosley - Principal Planner

Celia Davison - Manager Planning - Central/South

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

05 September 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

05 September 2017

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Planning Committee

05 September 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

05 September 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

05 September 2017

 

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Private Plan Change Request by Fletcher Residential Limited - Three Kings

 

File No.: CP2017/17204

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To consider a private plan change request by Fletcher Residential Limited relating to zoning in the Three Kings Quarry area and the Three Kings precinct within the Auckland Unitary Plan.

Executive summary

2.       Fletcher Residential Limited has lodged a private plan change request to amend Auckland Unitary Plan zoning and the provisions of Three Kings precinct within the Auckland Unitary Plan.  The private plan change refines, but does not challenge, the Three Kings precinct.  Additional detail is proposed and errors in the existing precinct are corrected. Further technical work is required to finalise the plan change prior to notification.

3.       A private plan change request may be adopted or accepted by the council.  Alternatively, the council may reject the private plan change request, or decide to deal with it as a resource consent application.  The report recommends that the council adopts the private plan change request. This is consistent with the decision made by the Planning Committee on 2 May 2017 in respect of the High Court proceedings relating to the Auckland Unitary Plan provisions for the Three Kings quarry area.

4.       The High Court appeal has been withdrawn (although a final decision relating to costs has yet to be issued by the High Court) and the Three Kings precinct provisions within the Auckland Unitary Plan are expected to operative by 5 September 2017, the date of the Planning Committee meeting.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      adopt the private plan change request by Fletcher Residential Limited Three Kings Precinct Draft 26A included as Attachment A to the agenda report as if it were a council plan change pursuant to clause 25(2)(a) of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991

b)      endorse the section 32 report included as Attachment B to the agenda report

c)      delegate to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the committee, and a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board, the authority to notify the final proposed plan change once the remaining technical work has been completed, iwi consultation requirements are satisfied, and after the relevant Auckland Unitary Plan provisions are made operative under clause 20 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.

 

 


 

Comments

Overview of the private plan change request

5.       Fletcher Residential Limited (Fletcher, or the proponent) requests council adopt a private plan change request to amend the Three Kings precinct (I333), and to rezone some land within the precinct.  The plan change request is included as Attachment A.  Fletcher’s supporting analysis is included as Attachment B.

6.       The precinct covers approximately 21 hectares of land north of the Three Kings town centre (town centre shown in pink on the following plan).  It includes a former quarry and a combination of reserve land, or land intended as reserve.  The precinct directly adjoins Te Tātua o Riu-ki-uta (Big King, shown in bright green).  The precinct’s current zoning is a mix of Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zone, and open space zones.

Plan 1: Current zoning of Three Kings Precinct

7.       The plan change request would:

a)      adjust the boundaries of existing zones; no new zones would be introduced (see Attachment A);

b)      introduce additional policies, standards and assessment criteria; and

c)      correct errors in the existing precinct; making the precinct’s implementation more effective.

8.       The precinct’s purpose is unchanged.  The former quarry will be redeveloped for housing and open space. Fletcher requests (with the agreement of two local community groups involved in the Auckland Unitary Plan appeals) that additional detail be added to the precinct such as:

a)      finished ground level

b)      protection of remnant volcanic features

c)      additional locally significant views from the precinct to Tātua o Riu-ki-uta (Big King)

d)      improved connectivity within the precinct and to local streets beyond

e)      introducing a non-complying status to breaches of particular standards (currently restricted discretionary).

Consideration

Previous Planning Committee resolution

9.       The committee considered a report on a potential plan change for Three Kings on 2 May 2017. The confidential report also addressed a draft settlement of the High Court appeal against the provisions in the Auckland Unitary Plan for the Three Kings quarry area.  Publicly released resolution PLA/2017/56 records:

C1 Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - High Court Appeal on Three Kings Precinct

That the Planning Committee:

a)      upon the withdrawal of the High Court appeal by the Societies (South Epsom Planning Group Incorporated and Three Kings United Group Incorporated), support a Council-initiated plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan to give effect to the settlement broadly agreed between Fletcher Residential Limited (Fletcher) and the Societies, following the necessary statutory processes of the Resource Management Act and reporting back to the Planning Committee.

10.     The Societies gave notice to the High Court that they wished to discontinue the appeals.  The matter remains live in respect of a costs application by a party to the appeals.  Fletcher has lodged the plan change request with the agreement of the Societies.

Statutory matters – status of the Three Kings precinct

11.     The Resource Management Act 1991 (Resource Management Act) enables private plan change requests to be made in relation to an operative plan.  There is no equivalent private request mechanism for a proposed plan, or provisions that are not yet operative. 

12.     Two appeals were lodged against the Three Kings precinct.  The Environment Court appeal is resolved; the High Court appeal is resolved except as to costs.  There are no remaining appeals against the Three Kings precinct provisions: the provisions are beyond challenge.  The zoning was not subject to appeal and is already operative.  Special Auckland Unitary Plan legislation deems provisions operative from the date on which all relevant appeals are resolved.[1] 

13.     One party has sought that costs be awarded; at the time the agenda closed this matter remained live.  A decision from the High Court is expected prior to 5 September 2017 confining the appeal to costs only. 

14.     Once costs are resolved altogether the council will be able to complete the final step in making the Three Kings precinct operative, which is notifying the date on which the precinct is to be operative, under clause 20 of the First Schedule, Resource Management Act.

Statutory matters – analysis of the private plan change request

15.     Although plan-making is a function of council, any person may request a change to a plan under clause 21 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act.  The council has to decide whether a plan change request is:

a)           adopted, as if the change was made by the council;

b)      accepted as a private plan change request;

c)      dealt with as a resource consent application; or

d)      rejected, but certain statutory criteria would need to be satisfied to reject a request.

16.     The Resource Management Act also requires that particular regard is paid to the evaluation report lodged by Fletcher accompanying the plan change.[2]  Refer to Attachment B. The evaluation report states Fletcher and the Societies agree there were certain elements highlighted through an earlier Environment Court process that would further enhance the precinct and should be included within the Unitary Plan.  The plan change provides that opportunity.

17.     The evaluation report provides background information to the private plan change request, the rationale, and a consideration of the costs and benefits.  Some technical documentation is appended to the evaluation report providing some detail on:

a)      urban design

b)      traffic

c)      stormwater

d)      noise and vibration

18.     Clause 25 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act is the relevant statutory provision relating to the decision the council is now required to make, see Attachment C.  Fletcher’s private plan change request is considered against the clause 25 options below.

Table 1: Options available under clause 25, First Schedule, Resource Management Act.

Benefit

Disbenefit

Other

Option: adopt the plan change

Adopting the private plan change request confirms the Planning Committee’s earlier commitment to resolving the High Court appeal in respect of the Auckland Unitary Plan provisions relating to the Three Kings quarry area and achieving a positive outcome for the area

Zone boundary changes align with previously agreed land swap between Fletcher and council.

Aligning zoning with the (intended) use of land is sound resource management practice.

Adoption enables council to take a whole precinct approach, rather than focussing solely on the additional details of interest to the proponent and supporting societies.

Correcting errors in the precinct would enhance the effectiveness of the Auckland Unitary Plan.

Processing costs would be borne by council, rather than the plan change proponent. 

Adoption of the request would be consistent with the committee’s resolution PLA/2017/56 (discussed below).

The plan change proponent may make a submission on the plan change. 

Council may submit on its own plan change, although this is usually reserved to the correction of errors and such like.  To avoid a conflict of interest, independent commissioners would determine a plan change if the council makes a submission.  

Option: accept the plan change

Zone boundary changes align with previously agreed land swap between Fletcher and council.

Aligning zoning with the (intended) use of land is sound resource management practice.

Correcting errors in the precinct would enhance the effectiveness of the Auckland Unitary Plan.

Processing costs would be borne by the plan change proponent, rather than council.

Council may not modify the plan change request without the agreement of the proponent.

Council may submit on an accepted private plan change.  To avoid a conflict of interest, independent commissioners would determine a plan change if the council makes a submission.  

Option: process as a resource consent

Nil

Would not achieve the intended purpose.  The nature of the changes proposed could not be implemented by resource consent alone.

The opportunity to correct errors and enhance the effectiveness of the Auckland Unitary Plan would be foregone.

Not applicable.

Option: reject the plan change

There would be no direct costs, as no plan change would be processed.

Plan change request has arisen from agreement between Fletcher and two local community groups to resolve an appeal.  Rejection would undermine that agreement and be contrary to the commitment made by the Planning Committee on 5 May 2017.

The plan change request corrects errors in the existing precinct.  Rejection would remove the ability to readily correct the errors.

Statutory criteria are not satisfied.  Request is not vexatious.  Parts of the request promote sound resource management practice.  Although the Unitary Plan has recently been made operative (in part) the change refines, and does not challenge, the Three Kings precinct.

19.     Adopting or accepting the private plan change request are superior options to rejecting the request, or dealing with it as a resource consent application.  Adoption would enable council to make any necessary amendments to achieve consistency with, and effectiveness of, the Auckland Unitary Plan.  Fletcher, as the proponent, would still have the ability to participate by making a submission. So too would the Societies, and any other interested individual or group. As noted above, adoption is also the option most consistent with the resolution made by the committee on 5 May 2017.

Local board views and implications

20.     The Puketāpapa Local Board has led, or been involved, in earlier non-statutory and statutory planning for Three Kings.  The board considered the ways by which a plan change request can be processed at a workshop on 3 August 2017, and resolved on 17 August 2017, PKTPP/2017/142:

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      congratulate the South Epsom Planning Group Incorporated, Three Kings United Incorporated, and Fletcher Residential Limited for reaching an agreement that resolves the appeals that were before the Court concerning the proposed development in the Three Kings quarry

b)      note that the board will be receiving a further report that will advise on the content of the proposed plan change request

c)      recommend that the Planning Committee adopts the plan change request to the Auckland Unitary Plan by Fletcher Residential Limited to the Three Kings precinct, and zones.

21.     Future reporting to the Local Board will solicit the Board’s views on the plan change content.  The Board’s views can then be incorporated in any hearings report on submissions, and substantive decision-making.

Māori impact statement

22.     The existing Three Kings precinct:

a)      provides for residential development and open space on and around the former quarry, immediately adjacent to Te Tātua o Riu-ki-uta;

b)      recognises the importance of Te Tātua o Riu-ki-uta, protects local sightlines to it and promotes planting on its slopes;

c)      promotes Te Aranga Māori design principles in the precinct’s development;

d)      encourages stormwater management in a manner that promotes kaitiakitanga of the aquifer and surface water; and

e)      provides an opportunity for a whare manaaki (educational and cultural facility) as a restricted discretionary activity.

23.     The private plan change request retains the matters summarised above.  Key changes likely to be of interest to Māori are:

a)      insertion of a whare manaaki definition;

b)      reduction in the size of the whare manaaki opportunity from 1000m2 to 450m2 (gross floor area);

c)      specification that no car parking spaces are required for the whare manaaki; and

d)      slight repositioning of the potential locations where a whare manaaki may be proposed.


 

24.     Fletcher advises it has undertaken consultation with mana whenua and the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority.  Fletcher also advises that a further hui is proposed with the five iwi with whom it has regularly met, and all the iwi on the council’s relevant rohe map are also to be invited.

25.     The Resource Management Act specifies consultation requirements when preparing a plan change.  If the plan change is adopted, the council would take on the responsibility for consulting with mana whenua. It would also be appropriate to consult with the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority.  The Authority co-governs Te Tātua o Riu-ki-uta (Big King) following the return of 14 maunga under the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014.  Te Tātua o Riu-ki-uta is outside, but immediately adjoining, the Three Kings precinct.

26.     The Resource Management Act has been amended to strengthen Māori participation in plan-making processes.  Consultation with iwi authorities affected by a plan change was always mandatory, however there are new requirements to:

a)      provide a draft plan change to affected iwi authorities prior to notification;

b)      allow affected iwi authorities adequate time and opportunity to consider the draft plan change, and provide advice; and

c)      have particular regard to any advice received.

27.     Should the committee agree to adopt the private plan change, the evaluation of potential impacts on, and opportunities for, Māori arising from the plan change will be evaluated separately to this report which is concerned solely with the process by which the private plan change request will be considered.

Implementation

28.     Resolution of the costs issue remaining from the High Court appeal is necessary prior to notification of Auckland Unitary Plan provisions for the Three Kings quarry area as operative.  The plan change itself cannot be notified until this occurs.

29.     Council staff are continuing to work with Fletcher and the Societies on the plan change to finalise various technical matters such as the precinct plans, the wording of proposed standards, achieving consistency with and effective implementation of Auckland Unitary Plan provisions.

30.     If the committee adopts the private plan change request, the council will need to comply with new plan-making participation requirements prior to notification.  Consultation with iwi authorities may result in amendments to the plan change.

31.     It is proposed that a final draft is provided to the Chair and Deputy Chair and a member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board for a decision to notify the plan change once:

a)      technical work has been completed;

b)      iwi consultation requirements are satisfied; and

c)      the Three Kings precinct provisions are made operative under clause 20 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act.


 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A - Private plan change request

199

b

Attachment B - Evaluation report supporting plan change request

235

c

Attachment C - Clause 25, First Schedule, RMA

315

     

Signatories

Author

Celia Davison - Manager Planning - Central/South

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

05 September 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

05 September 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

05 September 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

05 September 2017

 

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Proposed Plan Change - Whenuapai

 

File No.: CP2017/11518

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To publicly notify a change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (the Unitary Plan), to rezone land in Whenuapai from Future Urban to a range of residential and business zones, introduce a precinct for the area, address heritage matters and make other consequential text changes.

Executive summary

2.       The proposed plan change will enable the development of 4000 – 5000 houses and 113 hectares of light industrial and business land in Whenuapai.  It follows on from the Whenuapai Structure Plan which was approved by the Auckland Development Committee on 15 September 2016.  The proposed plan change makes a significant contribution to the council’s commitment to release land for housing supply, and contributes to the next stage of the growth and development of Auckland under the Unitary Plan.

3.       The proposed plan change area consists of the part of Whenuapai that is able to be serviced by bulk infrastructure providers in the next 10 years. The proposed plan change comprises a map of the zone changes in the area, precinct plans, precinct provisions and consequential amendments to the Unitary Plan.

4.       Section 86E of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) requires that the council must clearly identify any rule in a plan change that has legal effect other than the date on which decisions on submissions is made. Section 86B(3) states that a rule has immediate effect if it protects historic heritage. The proposed amendments to Schedule 14.1 and the Historic Heritage Overlay protect historic heritage, and therefore will have immediate legal effect in accordance with section 86B(3) of the RMA.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      approve the public notification of the proposed plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) for the Whenuapai area included as Attachments A-E of the agenda report

b)      endorse the section 32 evaluation report

c)      delegate to the Manager Planning North West and Islands the authority to approve minor editorial amendments to proposed plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) for the Whenuapai area, if required, in advance of public notification.

 

 

Comments

Background

5.       Whenuapai is an area of land zoned Future Urban in the Unitary Plan.  It is mainly located within the Albany Ward and Upper Harbour Local Board area, as well as some land within the Waitakere Ward and the Henderson-Massey Local Board area.  Whenuapai has strong transport links and long standing community ties to West Auckland and the North Shore.  Whenuapai also shares a boundary with the Rodney Local Board.

 

 

6.       The proposed plan change area is 360 hectares, comprising approximately 113 hectares of industrial land and 247 hectares of residential zones.  The residentially zoned land has development capacity for approximately 4,000 houses.  There are numerous existing activities throughout the plan change area, particularly rural and rural production, many of which have a long history that adds to the character and amenity of the area.  The proposed plan change does not affect the ability of land owners to continue to operate within the requirements of their resource consents or via their existing use rights.

Process to date

7.       A structure plan for the whole Whenuapai area was approved by the Auckland Development Committee on 15 September 2016.  Staff were requested to prepare a plan change for the Whenuapai Future Urban zoned land (refer to resolution number AUC/2016/117).

8.       A draft plan change for Stages 1a-1e of the Whenuapai Structure Plan area was approved by the Planning Committee on 28 March 2017 for public comment (refer to resolution number PLA/2017/38).  A total of 41 comments were received during the 10 April to 14 May 2017 engagement period.  The draft plan change was reviewed and amended in the light of the comments and other technical analysis that has occurred since the draft was completed.

9.       The Resource Legislation Amendment Act 2017 introduces new options for the plan change process.  These are the standard process, the collaborative planning process and the streamlined planning process.  The standard process is used for standard and privately initiated plan changes.  The collaborative planning process is recommended for district plan and regional policy statement reviews and contentious resource management issues.  The streamlined process is used to implement national directions, address urgent community need (for example following a civil defence emergency), aligning or combining plan provisions or addressing unintended consequences of plan provisions. 

10.     The standard process is the best option for the proposed plan change, as this plan change is a common approach to rezoning land and has tailored provisions that address the resource management issues in the proposed plan change area. This option has been communicated to the community during the draft plan change engagement period.

Proposed Plan Change Development

11.     The Whenuapai Political Reference Group met on 27 June 2017 to discuss the changes that have been made since the public engagement on the draft plan change was completed in May 2017.  The Reference Group agreed with the suggested amendments to the draft plan change and provided guidance on management of the noise created by the Whenuapai Airbase (Airbase) operations.  The proposed plan change therefore seeks to achieve an outcome where the operations of the Airbase are not constrained while future residents living around the Airbase are protected from the noise. Recent noise modelling has led to changes in zoning from the draft plan change changing residential to light industry along the Airbase’s southern boundary. 

Future Urban Land Supply Strategy

12.     The revised Future Urban Land Supply Strategy was approved at the Planning Committee on 4 July 2017.  Whenuapai Stages 1a to 1e are sequenced for development starting in the first half of decade one (2018-2022) and Whenuapai Stages 1f and 2 are in the first half of decade two (2028-2032).  The proposed plan change follows the direction set by the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy. 


 

 

Housing Infrastructure Fund

13.     The Government announced the Housing Infrastructure Fund decisions on 11 July 2017.  The $300 million allocated to the North West will fund wastewater, stormwater and transport improvements.  The transport improvements include an extension to Fred Taylor Drive and Northside Drive, a realignment of Trig Road and a new bridge crossing the State Highway 18 motorway connecting to the West Harbour ferry terminal.  The proposed plan change has been prepared to align with what council understands are these improvements, however the exact location, design and timing of these improvements is not yet known.

Proposed changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part)

Zone changes

14.     Residential and business zones from the Unitary Plan have been applied in the plan change area; see Attachment A for the proposed zoning map.  These zones provide for a mixture of dwelling types and densities, and for business and employment in the Light Industry zone. 

15.     A new Neighbourhood Centre zone is proposed to be located at the intersection of Hobsonville Road and a re-aligned Trig Road.  Land adjacent to the new Neighbourhood Centre and along Hobsonville Road to the west of the Centre is proposed to be zoned Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings, aligning with the Unitary Plan Regional Policy Statement.  The remainder of the residential land in the plan change area is proposed to be Mixed Housing Urban zone, and in some circumstances Single House zone.  The Single House zoned land is located around the southern boundary of Whenuapai Airbase to take into account the noise contours for arriving and departing aircraft and the management of aircraft engine testing noise.  Single House zone is also proposed to be applied in conjunction with the proposed Historic Heritage Area at Clarks Lane.

Precinct provisions

16.     The proposed plan change includes a new precinct to provide specific guidance on a number of matters where the Unitary Plan does not accurately reflect the outcomes sought by the Whenuapai Structure Plan.  It contains specific requirements identified following further technical assessment of the plan change area.  The precinct provisions and amendments to the Unitary Plan can be found in Attachment B. 

17.     The following matters are managed by the precinct.

·   General objectives and policies

o Aims to ensure subdivision, development and land use occurs in a coordinated, well-connected way while ensuring a high quality public realm.

·   Staging of subdivision and development

o Five areas (1A-1E) are identified and all development within these areas contribute to the required local infrastructure upgrades (road and intersection upgrades).

o Subdivision and development does not occur in advance of all of the infrastructure that is required to support the expected growth.

·   Transport

o Subdivision, development and land use provide for a connected transport network as shown on Precinct Plan 2.

o Roads provide pedestrian and cycle connectivity alongside streams and open spaces where practicable.

·   Neighbourhood centre zone

o The new neighbourhood centre is developed to respond to Hobsonville Road and Trig Road when it is realigned.

 

 

·   Stormwater management

o Provisions aim to enhance the sensitive receiving environment of the Upper Waitematā Harbour.

o Provisions reflect the overarching outcomes sought by the Whenuapai 3 Precinct Stormwater Management Plan, including a new rule requiring riparian planting to manage water quality.

o Permanent and intermittent streams shown on Precinct Plan 1 will assist in raising awareness of development constraints.

o Provisions relating to the design and placement of coastal outfalls to ensure appropriate consideration is given to managing adverse effects on the coast.

o Avoid locating new buildings in the 1 per cent Annual Exceedance Probability floodplain.

·   Coastal erosion risk

o The likely extent of coastal erosion in the Waiarohia and Wallace inlets has been assessed.  These inlets form the majority of the coastal edges located within the plan change area.

o This risk of coastal erosion has been managed by the introduction of a coastal erosion setback yard which aims to ensure that building locations are adequately set back from the coast.

o The coastal erosion setback protection yard ranges from 26 - 41 metres along the coast.

·   Biodiversity

o Objectives and policies are included that require subdivision, development and land use to:

-    enhance the coastal environment, the permanent, and intermittent streams and wetlands

-    recognise the location of the precinct as part of the North-West Wildlink.

·   Open space

o There will be 14.5-15.5 hectares of open space in the plan change area once development is completed.  This aligns with the council’s Open Space Network Planning in the Parks and Open Spaces Strategic Action Plan 2013.  This will comprise:

-    a 10 hectare sports park and a three hectare suburb park.  These will be acquired by Council outside of the plan change process

-    five neighbourhood parks between 03.-0.5 hectares in size that will be acquired at the time of subdivision.

·   Reverse sensitivity effects on Whenuapai Airbase

o The New Zealand Defence Force has provided comments on its requirements for lighting outside of the Airbase.  These are necessary to ensure that night time flight arrivals are not confused by streetlights that could appear to be a runway or runway approach lights.

o Provisions are also included to manage floodlights and searchlights.

·   Aircraft engine testing noise

o Insulation and related ventilation is required in habitable rooms between the 65dbLdn and 57dbLdn engine testing noise boundaries.

o Residential development is prohibited within the 65dbLdn area.

Precinct Plans

18.     All precinct plans are provided in Attachment B. Precinct Plan 1 shows permanent streams, intermittent streams, streams wider than three metres, indicative esplanade reserves, indicative open space and indicative coastal esplanade reserves.  Precinct Plan 2 shows indicative arterial roads, indicative collector roads, intersection upgrade locations, new intersections to be provided and land development areas.  Precinct Plan 3 shows engine testing noise boundaries.

Text changes to the remainder of the Unitary Plan

Historic Heritage Area

19.     A Historic Heritage Area (HHA) is included for the land at 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 Clarks Lane on which former workers cottages are sited. This area is proposed to be added to Schedule 14.1 Schedule of Historic Heritage (Table 2 Areas). The HHA will also require information to be added to Schedule 14.2 Historic Heritage Areas – Maps and statements of significance. 

20.     A Historic Heritage Area  is described in section B5.2.2(4)(d) of the Unitary Plan as:

groupings of interrelated but not necessarily contiguous historic heritage places or features that collectively meet the criteria for inclusion in Schedule 14.1 Schedule of Historic Heritage in Category A or B and may include both contributing and non-contributing places or features, places individually scheduled as Category A or B, and notable trees.

21.     All but one of the workers cottages (3 Clarks Lane) are individually scheduled historic heritage places in the Unitary Plan. The current Schedule 14.1 entry will remain for the former church located at 7 Clarks Lane. The church has historic heritage values in its own right, and contributes to, and has association with, the values for which the Historic Heritage Area  is significant. Therefore the existing individual schedule entries for 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10 Clarks Lane are proposed to be deleted from Schedule 14.1 to avoid duplicating management of these sites. 

Historic Heritage Place

22.     A Historic Heritage Place overlay is proposed to be added over 4 Spedding Road and 92 Trig Road, Whenuapai. This is the site of a World War Two era heavy anti-aircraft battery. This battery meets the criteria for inclusion in Schedule 14.1 Schedule of Historic Heritage as a Category B historic place. Amendments are required to the Schedule 14.1 (Schedule of Historic Heritage) text and to the Historic Heritage Place Extent of Place maps. 

23.     Section 86E of the RMA requires that a local authority must clearly identify any rule in a Plan Change that has legal effect other than the date on which decisions on submissions is made. Section 86B(3) states that a rule has immediate effect if it protects historic heritage. The text changes to Schedule 14.1 Schedule of Historic Heritage described below and listed in Appendix F, and the overlay map listed in Appendix G, are subject to the provisions in D17 Historic Heritage Overlay which manages the protection of significant historic heritage places, including the modification, relocation, demolition, use and development of these places. Tables D17.4.1 to D17.4.3 specify the activity status of activities affecting scheduled historic heritage places. The proposed amendment to Schedule 14.1 and the Historic Heritage Overlay have immediate legal effect in accordance with section 86B(3) of the RMA.

Appendix 17

24.     The appendix includes the Whenuapai Stormwater Management Plan 2017 as a document incorporated by reference into the Unitary Plan.

25.     The text amendments for Historic Heritage Areas, Historic Heritage Places and Appendix 17 are shown in Attachment C.

Overlays

26.     A map showing the proposed addition to the Historic Heritage Overlay is shown in Attachment D.

Controls

27.     A map showing the proposed Stormwater Management Area Flow-1 (SMAF-1) control is shown in Attachment E.

28.     All changes to the Unitary Plan were evaluated in accordance with the requirements of section 32 of the RMA.  More information can be found in the draft section 32 report.  The draft section 32 report will be included in the public notification documents.  It is an evolving document that will be updated throughout the plan change process.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

29.     The Henderson Massey and Upper Harbour Local Boards were briefed in March 2017 about the Planning Committee report seeking approval for the proposed plan change.  A further memo was taken to the local boards in August advising that the proposed plan change was to be considered by the Planning Committee at its September 2017 meeting.  Both local boards have expressed their approval for continuing the plan change process, and identified noise from the Whenuapai Airbase as a key matter to be addressed.

Māori impact statement

30.     The latest census data shows that 9.9 percent of the population in the wider Whenuapai area identify as Māori. All nine iwi groups with interest in the area were contacted at the beginning of the structure plan process.  Ngāti Whatua o Kaipara and Te Kawerau ā Maki have worked in partnership with council to develop cultural values assessments that help to inform the structure plan and the preparation of the proposed plan change.

31.     Council has undertaken site visits with Ngāti Whatua o Kaipara and the iwi have met with council’s Healthy Waters staff to discuss stormwater management in Whenuapai.

32.     On 11 May 2017 all iwi groups with an interest in the area were emailed the draft plan change and asked for their comment.  They were also asked to indicate whether it was appropriate to have a commissioner on the hearings panel with an understanding of tikanga Māori and the perspectives of local iwi and hapū.  Te Runanga o Ngāti Whatua deferred their interests in the area to Ngāti Whatua o Kaipara. 

33.     Resource Legislation Amendment Act 2017 made changes to Māori participation within the RMA with immediate effect. Schedule 1 of the RMA was amended to insert clause 4a which requires councils to provide a copy of a draft proposed plan change prior to notification and have particular regard to any advice received from iwi before notifying the plan.  Another relevant amendment was the insertion section 34A(1A) which requires councils to consult iwi authorities about whether it is appropriate to appoint a commissioner who understands tikanga Māori and the perspectives of local iwi and hapū.

34.     Following these RMA amendments, council staff contacted the nine relevant iwi authorities on 2 August 2017 with a copy of the draft proposed plan change and asked for comments, and whether they would like a commissioner on the hearings panel who has an understanding of tikanga Māori and the perspectives of local iwi and hapū.  Meetings with Ngāti Whatua o Kaipara on 21 August 2017 and with Te Kawerau ā Maki on 22 August 2017 occurred as a result of this process, and the plan change was further explained and discussed with both iwi.

35.     No changes were requested to the draft plan change during this process. Staff will follow up with all nine iwi authorities to confirm their position in response to the question of a having a commissioner with an understandings of tikanga Māori and the perspectives of local iwi and hapū being on the hearings panel.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A - Whenuapai Plan Change Zoning Map

325

b

Attachment B - Whenuapai Plan Change Precinct Text and Precinct Plans

327

c

Attachment C - Whenuapai Plan Change Unitary Plan Text Changes

349

d

Attachment D - Whenuapai Plan Change Historic Heritage Area Overlay

355

e

Attachment E - Whenuapai Plan Change SMAF-1 Overlay Control

357

     

Signatories

Author

Eryn Shields - Team Leader Planning - North West

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

 



Planning Committee

05 September 2017

 

PDF Creator



Planning Committee

05 September 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

05 September 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

05 September 2017

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

05 September 2017

 

PDF Creator



Planning Committee

05 September 2017

 

Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Proposed Plan Change - Administrative Plan Change

 

File No.: CP2017/17208

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To publicly notify a change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) to correct technical errors and anomalies.

Executive summary

2.       In August 2016, the Governing Body directed staff to initiate a process for relevant plan changes to address any technical matters and property anomalies relating to the Auckland Unitary Plan (GB/2016/201).

3.       In March 2017, council staff reported to the Planning Committee on the assessment of the errors and the Planning Committee made a resolution to agree to develop the first Administrative Plan Change to correct technical matters and anomalies (PLA/2017/40). Between March to August 2017, council staff completed the review of all identified errors and prepared the first administrative plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan for public notification.

4.       The key objective of the first Administrative Plan Change (proposed plan change) is to correct technical errors and anomalies in all parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan (except for regional coastal provisions). The proposed plan change is targeted at corrections of the errors and anomalies (including updating the zoning of recently vested land where appropriate) within the existing policies, rules, zoning and other methods of the Auckland Unitary Plan.

5.       Technical errors and anomalies are included in this proposed plan change if there is a clear way to correct the error. The proposed plan change does not seek to alter the outcomes of any of the objectives and policies of the Auckland Unitary Plan. Neither does it seek to introduce any new objectives, policies, rules, zoning, or other methods or new additions to the maps or schedules, from that which is already included in the Auckland Unitary Plan.

6.       In accordance with Part 5 of Schedule 1 and section 32 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act), a section 32 evaluation report has been prepared to determine the appropriateness, effectiveness, efficiency as well as costs and benefits of the proposed plan change. The section 32 evaluation report is included as Attachment B.

7.       The Planning Committee holds the delegation to approve notification of plan changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan. Staff are seeking approval to notify the proposed plan change. Council staff are also seeking delegated authority to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee and an Independent Māori Statutory Board Member to make amendments to the proposed plan change prior to public notification. This is to enable any feedback received from iwi authorities by 13 September to be considered for amendments to the proposed plan change.  The form, content, intent and scope of the proposed plan change will remain; iwi authorities’ feedback will be incorporated in and attached to the section 32 evaluation report prior to notification.

8.       Given the scope and scale of the proposed plan change (approximately 800 pages), a navigation guide has been prepared to assist the public to find technical errors and anomalies that may be relevant to them through the proposed plan change reports and attachments.


 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      approve the notification of the proposed plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) to correct technical errors and anomalies included as Attachments E-N of the agenda report.

b)      endorse the section 32 evaluation report contained as Attachment B to the agenda report.

c)      delegate to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee and an Independent Māori Statutory Board Member the authority to make amendments to the proposed plan change prior to public notification to incorporate any changes due to feedback from iwi authorities or other minor amendments.

 

Comments

Background

9.       Following the notification of the decision version of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (the ‘PAUP’) and the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part), council staff and the public identified a number of potential technical errors and anomalies within the Auckland Unitary Plan.

10.     In August 2016, the Governing Body directed staff to initiate a process for relevant plan changes, to address any technical matters and property anomalies relating to the Auckland Unitary Plan (GB/2016/201).

11.     In response to the resolution (GB/2016/201), council staff formed a project workstream to identify and assess the potential errors identified to date and determine if a plan change/s is warranted to address the technical matters (errors) and anomalies in the Auckland Unitary Plan. The assessment was to be done immediately in order to report back to the Governing Body, no later than March 2017.

12.     Council staff acting under delegated authority have amended some of these errors through Clause 16 or Clause 20A of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act). Of the 1300 errors identified, about 500 have been corrected through this process. However, the scope of errors that can be corrected through this process is narrow. There are technical errors and anomalies in provisions that are beyond the scope of Clause 16 or Clause 20A processes of the Act. 

13.     In March 2017, the Planning Committee approved the first Administrative Plan Change to the Auckland Unitary Plan in order to progress the correction of these technical matters and anomalies that are beyond the scope of the Clause 16 or Clause 20A processes of the Act (PLA/2017/40). Between March to August 2017, council staff completed the review of all identified errors and prepared the first administrative plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan.

Objective of the Administrative Plan Change

14.     The key objective of the Administrative Plan Change (the proposed plan change) is to correct technical errors and anomalies in all parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan (except for regional coastal provisions). 

15.     These errors and anomalies can create confusion and ambiguity within the Auckland Unitary Plan, which in turn impact on the functionality and integrity of the Auckland Unitary Plan.  An error in the provisions causes users of the Auckland Unitary Plan (i.e. consenting planners, consultants, and the public) to interpret these provisions differently. Consequentially, this can lead to an increased risk of litigation and reduced functionality. The outcome sought is to remove these technical errors and anomalies so as to remove ambiguity in the Auckland Unitary Plan.

16.     In accordance with Part 5 of Schedule 1 and section 32 of the Act, an evaluation report has been prepared to determine the appropriateness, effectiveness, efficiency as well as costs and benefits of a proposed plan change.

17.     This section 32 evaluation report (Attachment B) found that of the four options identified, a plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan is the most appropriate option for correcting these errors and anomalies. It summarised that correcting these technical errors and anomalies together in one plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan:

·   is effective, as it better aligns with its relevant objectives, policies and purpose of the Act;

·   is efficient, as the potential for users to interpret these provisions incorrectly is reduced; and

·   is appropriate, as the Auckland Unitary Plan will function more efficiently and productively with the correction of these errors.

Development of the Proposed Administrative Plan Change

Scope of the Proposed Plan Change 

18.     Figure 1 below summarises the various types of errors and anomalies that were investigated during the development of the proposed plan change.

Figure 1  Range of errors and anomalies

 

 

Out of Scope of the Proposed Plan Change

19.     Where an error requires further research and investigation, or there are various possible scenarios or correction, or where the impact of the correction is unclear, these were excluded from the proposed plan change.

20.     The errors that are not remedied under the proposed plan change can be included into one of these five plan changes that are in the pipeline:

·   addition of historic heritage places to Schedule 14 Historic Heritage Schedule, Statements and Maps

·   amendments to Schedule 14.1- Schedule of Historic Heritage

·   corrections to Schedule 10- Notable Trees Schedule

·   inclusion of additional sites to Schedule 12 Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua Schedule

·   enhancements to the AUP plan change.

21.     These five plan changes will be considered by the Planning Committee at a later date.

22.     If an error is affected by provisions subject to appeals, it has been excluded from the proposed plan change to enable it to be considered as part of the relevant appeals process. 

23.     Any substantive errors relating to the regional coastal plan have been excluded from the proposed plan change. The regional coastal plan component of the Auckland Unitary Plan was sent to the Minister of Conservation for approval on 14 July 2017. The special status of the coastal marine area as “common land” means a regional coastal plan has an additional approval step compared to other plans prepared under the Act. When a regional coastal plan is no longer subject to submissions or appeals, the council adopts it by affixing the council seal, and then refers it to the Minister of Conservation for approval. 

Corrections to Schedule 12 and Schedule 14 of the Auckland Unitary Plan

24.     While the proposed plan change seeks to correct errors and anomalies throughout the Auckland Unitary Plan, there are specific anomalies within Schedule 12 and Schedule 14 of the Auckland Unitary Plan that are required to be corrected.  Council staff undertook a detailed review of these schedules and included technical errors and anomalies for correction as part of the proposed plan change.

25.     For the errors in Schedule 12: Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua, the following matters are included in the proposed plan change: 

·   overlay mapping errors, whereby the extent of the mapped feature does not align with the legacy district plan; and

·   unclear, missing or incorrect information in the content of Schedule 12.

26.     For the errors in Schedule 14.1: Schedule of Historic Heritage, the following matters are included in the proposed plan change:

·   technical errors such as Category A places have no primary feature identified, duplicate entries into the Schedule, the extent of a feature is incorrectly mapped; and

·   anomalies such as clarification of the category a feature, correcting or updating the details of a feature, historic values.

27.     An evaluation of these schedules is contained in the section 32 evaluation report (Attachment B).

Zoning of land recently vested in the Council

28.     Over the past four years, a large number of land parcels across the Auckland region have been vested as ‘reserve’ to Council and do not have the appropriate corresponding zone in the Auckland Unitary Plan.

 

29.     As part of the proposed plan change, staff have identified and proposed the following matters relating to reserves that have been vested in the council:

·   ensuring the correct open space zone applies to land after this land is vested in the council (e.g. when land is vested as an esplanade reserve, the zoning needs to be changed to an open space zoning to reflect the land qualities and intended use and development).

·   whether a reserve should be a road or is an existing road, rather than an open space zone.

30.     There are approximately 400 land parcels included in the proposed plan change for a zoning change. The appropriate open space zone is determined and included in the proposed plan change.  An evaluation of the zoning of land recently vested in the Council is contained in the section 32 evaluation report (Attachment B).

Detailed methodology for the Proposed Plan Change

31.     To process technical errors and anomalies under the proposed plan change, a process was established (Section 8 of Attachment B). Quality assurance was included in the review and recommendation stages of the process, so as to ensure that the errors remained within scope and assessments were conducted in accordance with section 32 of the Act (i.e. for its appropriateness to existing objectives in the Auckland Unitary Plan and the purpose of the Act).

Consultation of the draft plan change

32.     Due to the administrative focus and avoidance of policy implications of the proposed plan change, no specific consultation was undertaken.

33.     After notification of the PAUP Decisions version, an email address was set up for all internal and external (public) enquiries on the Auckland Unitary Plan. Staff advised members of the public and internal staff within the council to send their potential errors to the email address so it could be registered with the team as a potential error for correction.

34.     In June 2017, letters were sent to customers who had sent potential errors to the Auckland Unitary Plan inbox email address, to advise them on the outcome of the errors assessments. A number of these customers were advised that their potential error will be addressed as part of the first administrative plan change process.  New letters will be sent to these customers to advise and confirm the error is part of the proposed plan change.

35.     Letters will also be sent out to owners and occupiers of the sites of which spatial changes are being proposed. These letters will be sent prior to notification and provide information on the plan change process.

Consultation with iwi

36.     Clause 3(1)(d) of Schedule 1 of the Act states that local authority shall consult with tangata whenua of the area who may be so affected, through iwi authorities, during the preparation of a proposed policy statement or plan.

37.     Due to the nature and large scale of the proposed plan change, staff have identified, through the mana whenua-defined rohe maps, the following iwi authorities with whom the council must consult with on this matter:

·   Te Runanga o Ngati Whatua

·   Te Uri o Hau

·    Ngati Manuhiri

·   Ngati Wai Trust Board

·   Ngati Rehua

·   Te Kawerau a Maki

·   Ngati Whatua o Kaipara

·   Ngati Whatua Orakei

·   Ngai Tai ki Tamaki

·   Ngati Tamaoho

·   Te Ahiwaru-Waiohua

·   Ngati Te Ata

·   Te Akitai ki Waiohua

·   Waikato-Tainui

·   Ngati Paoa

·   Ngaati Whanaunga

·   Ngati Maru

·   Ngati Tamatera

·   Te Patukirikiri.

38.     Clause 4A of Schedule 1 of the Act states that local authorities must:

·   provide a copy of a draft proposed policy statement or plan to iwi authorities to consider

·   have regard to feedback provided by iwi authorities on the draft proposed policy statement or plan

·   provide iwi authorities with sufficient time to consider the draft policy statement or plan.

39.     In June 2017, council staff informed iwi authorities about the proposed plan change and that a draft copy will be provided for feedback. Nine out of the 19 iwi authorities indicated an interest to see a draft copy of the plan change prior to notification. Accordingly, a draft copy of the proposed plan change was provided to iwi authorities in the Auckland region on 21 August 2017. Advice from iwi authorities is expected by 13 September 2017.

40.     It is recommended that advice received from iwi authorities on the draft proposed plan change is reported back to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee and an Independent Māori Statutory Board Member for any changes to the proposed plan change to be made.

Notification of the Proposed Plan Change

41.     Clause 5 of Schedule 1 of the Act requires local authorities to publicly notify the proposed policy statement or plan or provide limited notification (Clause 5A). Given the range of topics and the scale of proposed amendments; public notification of the proposed plan change is recommended.

42.     Certain types of rules in the Auckland Unitary Plan have immediate legal effect from notification of the proposed plan change. This is required under section 86B (3) of the Act. Immediate legal effect means that a rule must be compiled with from the day that the rule is notified within a plan change. 

43.     The section 32 evaluation report (Attachment B) identifies the proposed amendments that will have immediate legal effect on, and from the date on which the proposed plan change is publicly notified. Also, the Auckland Unitary Plan will be appropriately annotated to highlight rules that have immediate legal effect that relate to the proposed plan change.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

44.     Due to the administrative scope and avoidance of policy implications of the proposed plan change, limited consultation was undertaken with local boards on the development of this plan change. In April 2017, a memo was sent to local boards to advise on this proposed plan change and invite local board members to advise of any errors or anomalies that they may have identified.

45.     In August 2017, a further memo was sent to local boards as an update that the proposed plan change will be considered for public notification by the Planning Committee at its September meeting. The memo also included the matters that are included in the proposed plan change.

Māori impact statement

46.     The proposed plan change corrects technical errors and anomalies to Schedule 12: Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua of the Auckland Unitary Plan. The following matters are included and in scope of the proposed plan change:

·   Overlay Mapping error: Where the mapped extent does not match the legacy; the location description; or, information provided by mana whenua or within historic records.  This is deemed to be an anomaly within Auckland Unitary Plan.

·   Schedule 12 content: Where there is incorrect, unclear or missing information; spelling or formatting errors as well as missing macrons.  These are technical errors for correction.

47.     In all cases, the recommended amendments proposed in the proposed plan change do not change the intent of the Schedule or Overlay. Where there is an error to the mapped extent, it means that the Auckland Unitary Plan provisions in relation to Schedule 12 will apply to the correct area.

48.     As part of Clause 4 of Schedule 1 of the Act, feedback on the proposed amendments is being sought from iwi authorities prior to public notification.  All feedback received from iwi authorities will be summarised and incorporated into the evaluation report of the proposed plan change, and any amendments to the proposed plan change will be incorporated subject to the approval of the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee and an Independent Māori Statutory Board Member.


 

 

Note: Due to the size and complexity of Attachments D – N they have been made available under separate cover on the Auckland Council website at the following link: http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

'How to Guide' on PCX- navigation guide

367

b

Draft Section 32 Evaluation Report on PCX

373

c

Attachments 1 to 5 of Section 32 Evaluation Report

445

d

Attachments 6 to 30 Evaluation of individual items (PCX) (40 pages A3) (Under Separate Cover)

 

e

Attachment 31- Proposed amendments with immediate legal effect (PCX) (81 pages) (Under Separate Cover)

 

f

Attachment 32- Proposed amendments to text and diagrams (PCX) (103 pages) (Under Separate Cover)

 

g

Attachment 33- Proposed amendments to maps in AUP GIS viewer (PCX) (43 pages) (Under Separate Cover)

 

h

Attachment 34- Consequential amendments to other parts of AUP (PCX) (17 pages) (Under Separate Cover)

 

i

Attachment 35- Proposed amendments to Drury South Precinct (PCX) (25 pages) (Under Separate Cover)

 

j

Attachment 36- Land vested as open space PCX (Index) (6 pages A3) (Under Separate Cover)

 

k

Attachment 37- Land vested as open space PCX (North) (156 pages) (Under Separate Cover)

 

l

Attachment 38- Land vested as open space PCX (Central) (16 pages) (Under Separate Cover)

 

m

Attachment 39- Land vested as open space PCX (South) (123 pages) (Under Separate Cover)

 

n

Attachment 40- Land vested as open space PCX (West) (99 pages) (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Signatories

Authors

Jasmin Kaur - Planner

Gurv Singh - Principal Planner, Auckland-wide Planning

Phill Reid - Manager Planning- Aucklandwide  

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

05 September 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

05 September 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

05 September 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

05 September 2017

 

Summary of Planning Committee information memos and briefings - 5 September 2017

 

File No.: CP2017/17356

 

  

 

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/briefing or other means, where no decisions are required.

3.       The following information items are attached:

·   7 August 2017 – Auckland Council’s final Submission on the Proposed National Environmental Standard for Marine Aquaculture (Attachment A)

·   Planning Committee Forward Work Programme (Attachment B)

·   Schedule of September 2017 Planning Committee workshops (Attachment C)

4.       The following memos are attached:

·   28 July 2017 – Public consultation on the proposed change of use of 40 Anzac Street, Takapuna (Attachment D)

·   10 August 2017 – National Environmental Standards for Plantation Forestry gazettal (Attachment E)

·   17 August 2017 – Follow-up from Downtown and Midtown Planning Committee Workshop 9 August (Attachment F)

5.       The following workshops/briefings have taken place:

·   17 July 2017 – Auckland Plan Refresh (11) (Attachment G)

·   20 July 2017 – Auckland Plan Refresh (12) (Attachment H)

·   25 July 2017 – Housing Accord/Special Housing Areas (Attachment I)

·   25 July 2017 – Precinct Properties Commercial Bay (no attachment)

·   7 August 2017 – Confidential City Centre Waterfront Planning (no attachment)

·   9 August 2017 – Downtown/Midtown (Attachment J)

·   10 August 2017 – Auckland Plan Refresh (13) (Attachment K)

·   14 August 2017 – Confidential City Centre Waterfront Planning – Wynyard Quarter and Central Wharves (no attachment)

6.       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”.

7.       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 Planning Committee information memos and briefings – 5 September 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Auckland Council's final submission on the Proposed National Environmental Standard for Marine Aquaculture (Under Separate Cover)

 

b

Planning Committee Forward Work Programme September 2017 (Under Separate Cover)

 

c

Schedule of September 2017 Planning Committee workshops (Under Separate Cover)

 

d

Public consultation memo on the proposed change of use of 40 Anzac Street, Takapuna (Under Separate Cover)

 

e

Memo on gazettal of the National Environmental Standards for Plantation Forestry  (Under Separate Cover)

 

f

Memo regarding Downtown and Midtown Planning Committee Workshop held on 9 August (Under Separate Cover)

 

g

Auckland Plan Refresh Workshop 11 minutes  (Under Separate Cover)

 

h

Auckland Plan Refresh workshop 12 minutes (Under Separate Cover)

 

i

Housing Accord/Special Housing Areas workshop minutes (Under Separate Cover)

 

j

Downtown/Midtown workshop documents (Under Separate Cover)

 

k

Auckland Plan Refresh workshop 13 minutes (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Signatories

Author

Kalinda  Gopal - Governance Advisor

Authoriser

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

      

 


Planning Committee

05 September 2017

 

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

b)                                           

That the Planning Committee:

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

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

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

 

C1       Auckland Unitary Plan:  Council Position for High Court Appeal and Judicial Review on Weiti Precinct

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

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

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

s7(2)(g) - The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege.

In particular, the report contains legal advice

s48(1)(a)

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

 

   



[1] Section 152 Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010.

[2] Clause 25(1A), First Schedule, Resource Management Act 1991.