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

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Tuesday, 2 April 2019

9.30am

Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

 

Komiti Whakarite Mahere /

Planning Committee

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Cr Chris Darby

 

Deputy Chairperson

Cr Richard Hills

 

Members

Cr Josephine Bartley

Cr Daniel Newman, JP

 

Cr Dr Cathy Casey

IMSB Member Liane Ngamane

 

Deputy Mayor Cr Bill Cashmore

Cr Greg Sayers

 

Cr Ross Clow

Cr Desley Simpson, JP

 

Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins

Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM

 

Cr Linda Cooper, JP

Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE

 

Cr Alf Filipaina

Cr Wayne Walker

 

Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO

Cr John Watson

 

Mayor Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP

Cr Paul Young

 

IMSB Member Hon Tau Henare

 

 

Cr Penny Hulse

 

 

Cr Mike Lee

 

 

(Quorum 11 members)

 

 

 

Kalinda  Gopal

Senior Governance Advisor

28 March 2019

 

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

 

o   Regional Facilities Auckland (stadia)

 

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

02 April 2019

 

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 - McMullen and Wing - the introduction of zero emission electric ferries into the Auckland Transport ferry service                                 7

5.2     Public Input - Generation Zero - Public Transport Fares                                   8

6           Local Board Input                                                                                                                     8

7           Extraordinary Business                                                                                                          8

8           Hamilton to Auckland Corridor Plan – proposed partnership and work programme                                                                                                                               11

9           Converting Road Reserve, Unformed Legal Roads and Pedestrian Accessways to Open Space                                                                                                29

10         Proposed plan change to re-order and undertake technical corrections to Schedule 10 – Notable Trees Schedule and the corresponding mapped overlay                                                                                                                                       87

11         Proposed Plan Change Amendments to Historic Heritage Schedule 14             121

12         Receipt of Notice of Appeal to the decision on Orakei Point Private Plan Change  (Covering report)                                                                                                 173

13         Summary of Planning Committee information memos and briefings - 2 April 2019                                                                                                                                175  

14         Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

15         Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public                                                                      177

C1        Orakei Point Private Plan Change – Notice of Appeal (Covering report)             177  

 


1           Apologies

 

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

 

 

2           Declaration of Interest

 

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

 

 

3           Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Planning Committee:

a)          confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 5 March 2019, 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 - McMullen and Wing - the introduction of zero emission electric ferries into the Auckland Transport ferry service

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.          Michael Eaglen, Chief Executive of McMullen and Wing, will speak to the committee about the introduction of zero emission electric ferries into the Auckland Transport ferry service.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)       receive the public input from Michael Eaglen on behalf of McMullen and Wing about the introduction of zero emission electric ferries into the Auckland Transport ferry service, and thank him for attending.

 

 


 

5.2        Public Input - Generation Zero - Public Transport Fares 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       Leroy Beckett will speak to the committee on behalf of Generation Zero about public transport fares.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)       receive the public input from Generation Zero about public transport fares and thank them for attending.

 

 

 

6           Local Board Input

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

7           Extraordinary Business

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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


 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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


Planning Committee

02 April 2019

 

Hamilton to Auckland Corridor Plan – proposed partnership and work programme

File No.: CP2019/02048

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To update the committee on the central government-led Hamilton to Auckland Corridor Plan project and to seek endorsement of a proposed new partnership framework for the project through ‘Future Proof’, the Waikato sub-region’s growth management strategy and partnership framework.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       There are important growth, social, environmental, economic and cultural issues that cross administrative boundaries between Auckland and Waikato. Most of these issues are currently addressed on a project-by-project basis.

3.       The Hamilton to Auckland Corridor Plan (the project) is an opportunity for council to provide an aligned strategic approach to these cross-boundary issues with central government, local government and mana whenua partners.

4.       As part of the project, council has now been invited to participate, as an associate member, in what will be an expanded Future Proof partnership. The Hamilton to Auckland Corridor Plan project will be a workstream within Future Proof. The proposed partnership arrangement will be used to deliver on a proposed joint work programme.

5.       Future Proof is the Hamilton, Waipa and Waikato sub-region growth management strategy and partnership framework. The partnership comprises tangata whenua, Hamilton City Council, Waikato District Council, Waipa District Council, Waikato Regional Council and the New Zealand Transport Agency.

6.       Associate membership limits the scope of council’s involvement and contributions to the cross-boundary initiatives and issues that are relevant to Auckland.

7.       Staff recommend that council accepts the invitation to participate in the expanded Future Proof as an associate member, subject to a number of conditions.

8.       This approach is potentially cost-neutral as most of the initiatives within council’s scope are already underway and will be funded from existing budgets.

9.       Council’s participation in the project and specific initiatives does not constitute endorsement of project initiatives in any way. All financial and policy decisions will still be required to be approved by council.

10.     There is a separate process to invite additional Tāmaki Makaurau iwi with an interest to the corridor to join Future Proof. This process is being led by Waikato Tainui. Staff will provide technical advice in this regard when required.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)       note the progress update on the Hamilton to Auckland Corridor Plan project.

b)       approve the scope of council’s involvement in the proposed programme of initiatives as outlined in Attachment D of the agenda report.

c)       approve council’s participation in the expanded Future Proof partnership as an associate member, subject to the following conditions:

i)        council’s participation in Future Proof is limited to initiatives and issues that are relevant to Auckland, including:

A)       growth management issues relating to central government’s Urban Growth Agenda;

B)       cross-boundary issues that impact on Auckland’s communities, with a focus on growth, transport connections, service and infrastructure provision, water allocation and discharge, blue-green networks, and productive soils;

C)      specific project initiatives as shown in Attachment D of the agenda report;

D)      any other matters that the council wishes to specifically table, at its own discretion;

ii)       council’s financial contribution is limited to Auckland-specific matters and initiatives only;

iii)      council’s participation does not constitute endorsement of initiatives in any way, and all financial, policy and other decisions still need to be approved by council or council-controlled organisation boards;

iv)      alignment with existing council strategies and policies, e.g. the Auckland Plan 2050 Development Strategy;

v)       alignment with the Crown and Auckland Council Joint Programme of Work on Auckland Housing and Urban Growth.

 

Horopaki

Context

Project update

11.     The Hamilton to Auckland Corridor Plan (the project) was initiated by central government in 2018. It aims to investigate opportunities to unlock and shape growth along the corridor between Papakura and Cambridge.

12.     The project falls under the “spatial planning” pillar of central government’s Urban Growth Agenda. Project partners are mana whenua, central government and local government.

13.     On 4 September 2018, the Planning Committee endorsed council’s ongoing participation as a partner in the project (Resolution number PLA/2018/89).

14.     Since September, Council and CCO staff have been working with project partners to progress certain focus areas within the project, such as:

·    contributing to the evidence base behind the project initiatives (e.g. GIS maps, population and employment projections);

·    aligning project initiatives with the sequencing and timeframes in the Auckland Plan 2050 Development Strategy and Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP);

·    specific technical inputs into various workstreams including aligning the project with existing Auckland-based workstreams e.g. southern structure planning and supporting transport technical work.

15.     It is now proposed that the ongoing partnership arrangement of the project be reconsidered, specifically its governance and technical structures.

Proposed partnership framework

16.     Council currently addresses cross-boundary issues mainly on a project-by-project basis, although from time to time discussions of a broader strategic nature are had with our neighbours.

17.     The Hamilton to Auckland project partners have expressed a desire for the partners – including additional iwi - to formalise this cross-boundary arrangement by adapting and enlarging the existing Future Proof partnership to deliver the various workstreams developed in the Hamilton to Auckland project.

18.     Future Proof is the Hamilton, Waipa and Waikato sub-region growth management strategy and partnership framework. The partnership comprises tangata whenua, Hamilton City Council, Waikato District Council, Waipa District Council, Waikato Regional Council and the New Zealand Transport Agency.

19.     To serve as the vehicle for the Hamilton to Auckland project the following changes to Future Proof are proposed:

·    invite central government and Auckland Council to join Future Proof as ‘associate members’, with Auckland Council involvement limited to cross-boundary transport connections and initiatives, and housing and urban growth matters; and

·    invite additional iwi with an interest in the region and corridor to join Future Proof.

20.     Waikato Tainui are leading the process to invite additional iwi to join the expanded Future Proof partnership. An iwi-only hui was held on 21 March 2019, the outcomes of which will be known to council by the 2 April 2019 Planning Committee.

21.     Attachment A shows the proposed structure and membership of Future Proof. This is a work in progress and subject to change as discussions continue between various parties.

22.     As it relates to Auckland, Attachment A shows that:

·    political representation (through the Future Proof Implementation Committee) will include the Franklin Ward Councillor and the Franklin Local Board Chair;

·    additional Tāmaki Makaurau iwi are potentially to be included in the Implementation Committee and/or Ngā Karu Atua o te Waka (Tangata Whenua advisory group), subject to the outcomes of the 21 March 2019 iwi-only hui;

·    the Chief Executive (or his representative) will be included in the Future Proof Chief Executives Advisory Group;

·    the Hamilton to Auckland Corridor Plan project will become one of the ‘technical workstreams’ of Future Proof. Attachment B shows the proposed geographic coverage of the project as a subset of the wider Future Proof area.

Proposed Hamilton to Auckland programme of housing and urban growth initiatives

23.     There are currently twenty initiatives in the proposed work programme for the Hamilton to Auckland project. Some are council, crown or iwi initiatives already underway. Some are existing projects that have been rescoped. There are also a few new initiatives.

24.     The initiatives fall under the following focus areas:

·    Focus Area 1: Stronger corridor connections (focusing on a cross-regional blue-green open space; fast intercity rail between Hamilton and Auckland)

·    Focus Area 2: Papakura-Pokeno sub-region (completion of respective council structure plans; investigating extending rail electrification to Pukekohe and Pokeno)

·    Focus Area 3: River communities (focusing on revitalising Meremere and Huntly)

·    Focus Area 4: Hamilton-Waikato sub-region (a council-crown-iwi spatial plan for the sub-region; metropolitan mass transit plan)

·    Focus Area 5: New tools and options (using new funding and financing tools; increased crown involvement to support pace and scale).

25.     Attachment C shows the proposed programme of initiatives in full.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

26.     Staff recommend that council accepts the invitation to participate in the expanded Future Proof as an associate member, subject to conditions as outlined in the next section.

27.     There are important issues that cross administrative boundaries between Auckland and Waikato, most of which are addressed on a project-by-project basis. Formalising the arrangements can contribute to a more coordinated effort by partners to achieve shared outcomes.

28.     Associate membership limits the scope of council’s involvement and contributions to the cross-boundary initiatives and issues that are relevant to Auckland.

29.     In comparison, full membership of Future Proof requires that council be involved in all Future Proof initiatives, which includes Hamilton and Waipa initiatives. It is not appropriate for council to involve itself in another region’s initiatives that do not impact on Auckland’s communities.

30.     Associate membership is potentially cost-neutral as most of the initiatives within council’s scope are already underway and will be funded from existing budgets at this stage.

Conditions to membership

Scope of council involvement

31.     As an associate Future Proof member, council would:

·    attend and participate in Future Proof only in relation to the initiatives and issues that are relevant to Auckland;

·    contribute resources to Auckland-specific matters or initiatives only;

·    in general, not take part in the wider Future Proof governance, management and technical discussions and work programmes, apart from those with cross-boundary implications on Auckland’s communities.

32.     The involvement of council and council-controlled organisations (CCOs) in project initiatives does not constitute endorsement of those initiatives in any way. All financial, policy and other decisions still need to be approved by council or CCO boards.

33.     The specific matters and initiatives that council and the wider council family would participate in are:

·    growth management issues or opportunities that relate to the corridor, e.g. Urban Growth Agenda;

·    cross-boundary development issues or opportunities, with a focus on growth, transport connections, service and infrastructure provision, water allocation and discharge, blue-green networks, and productive soils;

·    progression of the specific project initiatives as shown in Attachment D;

·    any other matters that the council wishes to specifically table, at its own discretion.


 

Alignment with existing council strategies

34.     The Auckland Plan 2050 Development Strategy is council’s spatial plan. The Auckland Unitary Plan gives effect to this strategy and is council’s statutory plan under the Resource Management Act. Both these form the basis of council’s current position on land use and will set the parameters for work under Future Proof.

35.     Central government has indicated an aspiration to undertake a joint government-iwi-council spatial plan for the southern Auckland and northern Waikato area, after the completion of the southern Auckland structure plans. This has not been agreed by council. This is a new initiative and something the council may have to consider in future. At this stage, any joint spatial planning for the corridor that affects Auckland would have to align with existing council strategies and plans.

Alignment with Crown and Auckland Council Joint Programme of Work on Auckland Housing and Urban Growth

36.     At the Planning Committee on 5 March 2019 the committee endorsed the Terms of Reference for this joint programme of work, including the initial workstreams and projects (Resolution number PLA/2019/16).

37.     The following projects under this programme have relevance to the Hamilton to Auckland workstream under the Future Proof partnership:

·    southern growth area (immediate focus Drury)

·    infrastructure funding and financing

·    spatial planning.

38.     Staff will ensure that the necessary links are made and that work under the Future Proof partnership does not duplicate work under this joint work programme.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

39.     The proposed Hamilton to Auckland Corridor Plan work programme affects the wider council family in the following ways:

·    Watercare because of the significance of the Waikato River to Auckland from an allocation and discharge perspective;

·    Auckland Transport (AT) because of the potentially significant cost and operational implications of the proposed “fast” intercity rail service – ATAP does not explicitly provide for regional services – and the proposed extension of the AT metro network to Pokeno;

·    Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (ATEED) due to the project objective to create employment opportunities within the corridor.

40.     There are opportunities for the council family to be represented at the executive and technical levels of Future Proof, to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

41.     The project study area includes the Franklin and Papakura Local Boards areas with most relevance to Franklin Local Board given its proximity to the Auckland-Waikato boundary.

42.     There are significant growth-related social, economic, environmental and cultural issues that cross administrative boundaries. This includes:

·    the social and physical infrastructure and services required to service growth;

·    the fragmentation of prime and elite soils through subdivision and land use;

·    the significant issues with water allocation and discharge within the corridor.

43.     This project enables Auckland and Waikato to coordinate an integrated strategic approach to these issues.

44.     Franklin and Papakura Local Board representatives have been involved at governance-level discussions for the Hamilton to Auckland project. Staff recommend that the Franklin Local Board chair, together with the Franklin Ward councillor, be part of the governance of the proposed Future Proof partnership, with representation from Papakura Local Board if and when required.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

45.     Provision is made for mana whenua representation in the proposed Future Proof partnership. This includes expansion of iwi representation to include additional Tāmaki Makaurau iwi.

46.     The Hamilton to Auckland Corridor Plan project initially only included Waikato Tainui and Ngāti Paoa as partners. After advocacy from Auckland Council and the Independent Māori Statutory Board, additional iwi with an interest in the corridor were notified of the project and invited to participate in workshops and governance meetings. They include Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Tamaterā, Ngāti Whanaunga, Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua, Te Kawerau ā Maki, Te Ahiwaru and Te Ākitai.

47.     The process to invite additional iwi to participate in Future Proof is led by Waikato Tainui. Waikato Tainui and Ngāti Tamaoho are already part of Future Proof.

48.     An iwi-only hui was held on 21 March 2019, the outcomes of which will be known to council by the 2 April 2019 Planning Committee.

49.     Attachment A shows that additional Tāmaki Makaurau iwi could potentially be included in the Future Proof Implementation Committee and/or Ngā Karu Atua o te Waka (Tangata Whenua advisory group), subject to the outcomes of the iwi-only hui on 21 March 2019. Additionally, staff will provide best practice approaches to advance mana whenua decision-making and priorities through the Hamilton to Auckland project to the project’s director.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

50.     Most of the initiatives within council’s scope are already underway and will be funded from existing budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

51.     The following risks are identified:

Risk

Mitigation

Central government could, through this project, apply a top-down approach to addressing growth management in Auckland that could undermine council’s current strategic approach and be contrary to existing council policies.

Governance and executive groups to oversee and manage risks.

There is reputational risk that, if investigated initiatives do not progress, council will be criticised for raising expectations.

Engagement with stakeholders and communication with Aucklanders during the investigation of initiatives.

There is a risk that this project may raise expectations that Auckland Council will contribute financial resources to the wider corridor project or Future Proof.

Auckland Council will contribute resources to Auckland-specific matters or initiatives only.


 

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

52.     The next steps are:

Date

Item

April

Auckland Council and Crown to separately consider associate membership to Future Proof.

May - June

If invitations to join Future Proof are accepted, agree proposed joint work programme and associated resources.

July

Final agreement to joint key initiatives work programme by proposed new partnership, subject to further endorsement, consultation and engagement.

Ongoing

Work with central government to identify and pilot new planning, funding and financing tools linked to the other key initiatives. Part of the Auckland Housing and Urban Growth joint work programme with government.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Proposed Future Proof partnership structure and membership

19

b

Map of the Auckland-Hamilton Corridor Plan within the wider Future Proof area

21

c

Proposed Hamilton-Auckland Corridor programme of housing and urban growth initiatives

23

d

Specific Hamilton-Auckland Corridor matters and initiatives that council would participate in

27

      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Szening Ooi – Senior Transport Advisor

Phil Haizelden – Team Leader Transport Strategy

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Penny Pirrit - Director Urban Growth and Housing

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

02 April 2019

 

PDF Creator



Planning Committee

02 April 2019

 

PDF Creator



Planning Committee

02 April 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

02 April 2019

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

02 April 2019

 

Converting Road Reserve, Unformed Legal Roads and Pedestrian Accessways to Open Space

File No.: CP2019/00064

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To identify options for using road reserve and unformed legal roads (paper roads) as open space and to highlight some of the potential issues that could be involved.

2.       To recommend the most appropriate mechanism(s) for investigating potential conversions of road reserve and unformed legal road to open space.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3.       At its 7 August 2018 meeting, the Planning Committee:

(c) requested staff report back to the Planning Committee before the end of the year on the issues and options associated with reclassifying and rezoning pieces of road reserve and public owned paper roads as recreation reserves and open space. The report should also assess whether pedestrian only accessways should be zoned as open space.
(Resolution number PLA 2018/72)

4.       In established urban areas, it is becoming increasingly more difficult and hugely expensive to acquire additional public open space.

5.       Additional open space could be secured by converting portions of unutilised road reserve and unformed legal roads (paper roads) to open space. This could be undertaken either with or without “stopping” the road. The process for “stopping a road” is specified in the Local Government Act 1974. Rezoning road reserve to open space would require a plan change.

6.       Formed and sealed roads are shown as “road” in the Auckland Unitary Plan. Unformed legal roads are shown in a variety of ways, depending on the approach that was used in the legacy district plans.

7.       In some cases, portions of road reserve and unformed legal roads are already used informally as open space, for example, walkways to reserves or informal recreation areas Many existing parks and reserves include unformed paper roads. Some “road ends” abutting the coastal marine area do not have a formed carriageway and appear to be open space. Road stopping procedures would be required to “stop” these roads.

8.       Pedestrian accessways linking roads are shown as “road” under the Auckland Unitary Plan. This approach was agreed to by Auckland Transport (AT), Parks and Plans and Places Departments when developing the plan. They are owned and maintained by AT. Many of these are vested as local purpose reserve – walkway.

9.       The advantages of securing additional open space via road reserve or unformed legal road are that the open space resource is increased in a cost-effective manner and there is a positive public perception associated with this. The disadvantages include the costs of “stopping” roads, including potential Environment Court costs, the need for a stopped road to be offered back to the former owners, the need in some cases to maintain access to private property and the more enabling provisions of an open space zone (in comparison to “road”).


 

10.     Auckland Council currently uses a number of tools that are/can be used to identify additional open space and recreational opportunities. These include greenway plans, open space network plans, area plans, centre plans, structure plans and “regeneration” plans. The greenway plans, open space network plans and structure plans, in particular, are already/could be used to identify opportunities to utilise road reserve and unformed legal road and/or pedestrian accessways as open space.

11.     Innovative ways of providing open space and/or opportunities for recreation activities in urban areas are not limited to road reserves or unformed paper roads. The wider issue therefore, is what innovative approaches could be used to provide additional areas of open space and/or recreational opportunities. In addition to the information requested in the
7 August 2018 Planning Committee resolution, this paper also provides some examples of innovative approaches used in Auckland and elsewhere in New Zealand and around the world.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)       note that unutilised road reserve and unformed paper roads are a significant (in excess of 300 ha) potential open space resource;

b)       note that unutilised road reserve and unformed legal road (paper roads) do not necessarily need to be “stopped” and/or rezoned to open space to be used as open space;

c)       recommend to the Parks and Recreation Policy Unit that where road reserve and unformed legal road is utilised as open space / recreation purposes, this is in addition to the open space provision standards for a local board area;

d)       approve the use of existing mechanisms such as the preparation, implementation and review of greenway plans, open space network plans and structure plans as the primary tools for identifying future open space opportunities;

e)       request staff when undertaking the preparation, implementation or review of greenway plans and open space network plans, and the preparation of structure plans in conjunction with local boards, give further consideration to:

i)        where appropriate, using unutilised road reserve and/or unformed paper roads as open space; and

ii)       investigating innovative ways of providing additional open space and recreational facilities (in accordance with the Auckland Council’s Parks and Open Space Acquisition Policy 2013, the Open Space Provision Policy 2016 and the Auckland Plan 2050);

f)        endorse the existing Unitary Plan approach for pedestrian accessways, which is that pedestrian accessways linking roads are shown as “road”, and those linking roads to open space are shown as “open space”.

 

 


 

Horopaki

Context

Previous Resolution

12.     At its 7 August 2018 meeting, the Planning Committee:

(c) requested staff report back to the Planning Committee before the end of the year on the issues and options associated with reclassifying and rezoning pieces of road reserve and public owned paper roads as recreation reserves and open space. The report should also assess whether pedestrian only accessways should be zoned as open space.
(Resolution number PLA 2018/72)

13.     The above resolution of the Planning Committee arose out of its consideration of the Open Space Plan Change (PC13), where land that had been vested or purchased over the preceding year, was to be rezoned to one of the five Auckland Unitary Plan open space zones.

Problem or Opportunity Definition

14.     In established urban areas, it is difficult and hugely expensive to acquire additional public open space. As parts of Auckland become more intensively developed, existing open spaces will need to be used more efficiently and innovative ways of increasing access to open space or providing recreation opportunities may be required.

15.     There are portions of road reserve and unformed legal road that are currently or potentially could be, used as open space. Additional open space could be secured by converting or utilising road reserve as open space. This could be undertaken either with or without “stopping” the road.

16.     Many existing open spaces/reserves include unformed legal (paper) roads. Some of these are shown as road in the Auckland Unitary Plan while others are zoned the same as the surrounding open space. The public are generally not aware of these paper roads. Road stopping procedures would be required to “stop” these roads. There is little to be gained and potentially significant costs involved if these unformed legal (paper) roads are “stopped”. In addition, if land is no longer required for a public work, it must be offered back to the former owners under the Public Works Act 1981.

17.     Pedestrian walkways linking roads are shown as “road” under the Auckland Unitary Plan. They are owned and maintained by Auckland Transport. Many of these are vested as local purpose reserve – walkway.

Unformed Legal Roads (or Paper Roads)

18.     An unformed road is as much a legal road as the formed roads that make up Auckland’s public road network. Unformed legal roads may only be recorded on survey plans and not always readily identifiable on the ground (which is why they are often referred to as “paper roads”). Most have never been developed due to there being no access requirements, impractical topography, lack of funding priority or unsuitable environmental conditions. Ownership lies with either a territorial authority or the crown. Road Controlling Authority powers are exercisable over them in the same way as other roads. This means that in Auckland, unformed legal roads are under the control of Auckland Transport. Unformed legal roads are an important component of the transport and recreation network envisaged in the Auckland Council Parks and Open Space Strategic Action Plan 2013.

19.     Most unformed legal roads were established during the early days of settlement, particularly in the period of provincial government (1854 – 1876). Before crown land was sold, land was set aside as roads to ensure public access would be available once the land was developed. Roads were shown on survey plans, but not frequently built or used.


 

20.     The functions and powers of Auckland Transport are set out in the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 – particularly sections 45 and 46. These provisions provide that Auckland Transport manages and controls the Auckland transport system (including unformed legal roads).

21.     Public users have rights of free passage on unformed legal roads as they do with public formed roads. However, unlike formed roads, unformed roads may in places not be traversable due to the condition of the surface, unsuitable terrain, dense vegetation and other natural hazards.

22.     Rights of free passage must also be balanced against potential damage to the environment, and Auckland Transport has the right to restrict vehicle movements on unformed legal roads for the purpose of protecting the environment or the public.

23.     Some of the unformed legal roads throughout the Auckland region are already used by recreational users for such activities as walking, mountain biking, horse riding, hunting and to reach outdoor destinations such as rivers, lakes and beaches.

The Use of Roads (Including Unformed Roads)

24.     Section 22AB of the Land Transport Act 1998 enables road controlling authorities to make certain bylaws. Auckland Transport have a Traffic Bylaw (2012) which sets the requirements for vehicle and road use, parking and enforcement powers on roads under the care, or management of Auckland Transport.

Methods for Removing the Status of Legal Road

25.     There are two methods for removing the status of a legal road:

i.      By a process referred to as “road stopping” under the Local Government Act 1974 – see Attachment A (as opposed to temporary road closures where the underlying status of being a road returns after the closure), or

ii.     By the Minister for Land Information who may stop a road under section 116 of the Public Works Act 1981.

26.     Auckland Transport can stop roads by following the procedure set out in Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 1974, which involves public notification. If the road is in a rural area, the consent of the Minister for Land Information must be obtained for the road to be stopped. If there are objections to the road stopping these will need to be determined by the Environment Court.

27.     Assessment of whether a road should be stopped is based on a number of factors (including current and possible future use) to determine whether the need for the road for public use is outweighed by the need for the stopping. Once a road has been stopped, it must be offered back to the former land owners under the Public Works Act 1981. If they (or their successors) are not interested in acquiring the land, Auckland Council is responsible for determining how the land will be used or disposed of. In practice, the purpose of the road stopping often determines how the land will be used. Stopped roads bordering waterways must become esplanade reserves. Under the Auckland Unitary Plan, stopped roads are to be zoned the same as the adjacent zone and do not need to go through a plan change process.

28.     Auckland Transport has no obligation to form any unformed legal roads, and currently has no forward capital works programme to form or improve unformed roads. However, Auckland Transport will consider applications from adjacent property owners, developers and interest groups to construct carriageways, cycle tracks, bridle paths and footpaths within unformed legal roads at the applicant’s expense where this is vital for development or where significant public access benefits are clearly demonstrated.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

The Auckland Unitary Plan Approach

29.     The different ways roads, including unformed legal roads are shown in the Auckland Unitary Plan are listed in the table below. Apart from pedestrian walkways where a consistent approach was adopted throughout the region, these largely reflect the legacy District Plan approaches.

Road Status

Unitary Plan Zone

Road – formed and sealed

All shown as road

Unformed legal (paper) road

Some shown as road, some have the same zoning as adjacent land, some are zoned open space (e.g. if they lie within a park/reserve)

Pedestrian walkway linking road to road

All shown as road

Pedestrian walkway linking road to open space

All zoned as the same open space zone as the reserve it provides access to

Examples of the Different Unformed Legal Roads

30.     Attachment B provides examples of the different ways unformed legal roads and pedestrian accessways are dealt within the Auckland Unitary Plan. These include:

(a)      Road reserve “ends” that are shown as road (e.g. Brett Ave, Takapuna, Ellett Road and Kidd Road, Karaka) but are effectively used as open space;

(b)      Unformed legal road shown as road (e.g. Kauri Point Domain, unnamed road off Piha Road);

(c)      Unformed legal road shown as open space (e.g. Omana Reserve, Maraetai);

(d)      Unformed legal road shown as the same zoning as the adjacent land (e.g. Krippner Road, Puhoi);

(e)      Pedestrian accessway from road to road (View Road and The Esplanade, Campbells Bay);

(f)       Pedestrian accessway from road to reserve (Whitby Crescent, Mairangi Bay).


 

Number of Road Ends, Unformed Legal Roads & Pedestrian Accessways

31.     The Plans and Places GIS team undertook an analysis of the number of instances unformed legal roads occur adjacent to the Coastal Marine Area (CMA) and the number of pedestrian accessways shown as road.

32.     The table below contains the results of that analysis.

Unformed Legal Roads & Pedestrian Accessways

Number

Approximate Area (ha)

Instances of unformed legal roads adjacent to the Coastal Marine Area

512

 

-      Instances of unformed legal road zoned as road adjacent to the CMA and not in Parks asset database

271

308

-      Instances of unformed legal road adjacent to the CMA which are in the parks asset database but are not zoned as open space

241

330

Instances of legal road zoned as open space

172

 

Pedestrian accessways shown as road

465

 

 

33.     Potentially there are 512 unformed legal roads adjacent to the CMA that could be rezoned to increase the area of open space zoned land. Of these, 271 are not currently in the Parks asset database and 241 are in the database. This information is portrayed on a map in Attachment C.

34.     In addition, there are 465 pedestrian accessways in the Auckland region that are shown in the Unitary Plan as “road”. These are located between roads. Pedestrian accessways that provide access from a road to a park (or open space) typically have the same zoning as the adjacent open space.

Relevant Auckland Council Plans and Strategies Relating to Open Space Acquisition

i. The Auckland Plan 2050

35.     The outcomes, focus areas and directions from the Auckland Plan 2050 that are relevant to open space are contained in Attachment D.

36.     The Auckland Plan 2050, Homes and Places outcome recognises that “As Auckland's population increases and becomes more urbanised, our public places and spaces will become even more important to our wellbeing. This is particularly the case in areas of high growth, increased density and socio-economic need. This has implications for the number, size and location of our public places. It is also an important reason why we need to think differently about what we consider to be a public place and how we conceive its use. We also need to think differently about how we design and deliver them”.


 

ii. Parks Acquisition Strategies and Policies

37.     The acquisition of parks is guided by the Parks and Open Space Strategic Action Plan 2013, the Parks and Open Space Acquisitions Policy 2013 and the Open Space Provision Policy 2016. The role and function of these documents is outlined in Attachment E.

Tools Available to Identify and Deliver Open Space and Recreation Opportunities

Open Space Network Plans

38.     The open space acquisition policy identifies tools for identifying future open space and parks. These include two key tools - open space network plans and greenway plans.

39.     Open Space Network Plans set out the actions needed to deliver a sustainable quality open space network for a local board area that will respond to the anticipated growth and provide the community with access to a range of recreational, social, cultural and environmental experiences. They sit under the Open Space Strategy, providing high level direction for improvements to the open space network, specific to each Local Board area.

40.     The current status of Open Space Network Plans for the Auckland Region’s local board’s is outlines in Attachment J.

41.     The plans assist Auckland Council to prioritise its spending for parks and open space development by identifying projects for prioritisation through the local board plan, long term plan and annual plan processes.

Greenway Plans

42.     Auckland’s Greenway Plans are a series of linked, visionary plans being developed from the “ground up” by local boards and their communities with the long-term aim of improving walking, cycling and ecological connections across the region.

43.     Greenway Plans aim to provide cycling and walking connections which are safe and pleasant while also improving local ecology and access to recreational opportunities. To achieve this, greenways may cross existing areas of parkland and follow street connections between parks. The network typically follows natural landforms such as streams and coastlines as well as man-made features such as streets and motorways.

44.     The status of Greenway Plans for each local board area is outlined in Attachment K.

Structure Plans

45.     Appendix 1 – Structure Plan Guidelines, of the Auckland Unitary Plan identifies the provision of open space, the integration of green networks with open space and pedestrian and cycle networks and the layout of the transport network and facilities as matters that a structure plan must identify, investigate and address.

46.     Open space network plans, greenway plans and structure plans are/can be an effective tool in identifying future open space opportunities associated with road reserves and unformed legal road.

Examples from Other Cities of Road Reserve/Closed Roads Being Converted to (or Considered as) Open Space

47.     Like Auckland, other cities in Australasia are recognising the open space benefits of roads or road reserves. Attachment F highlights examples from Sydney, Melbourne and Christchurch which illustrate this point.


 

Other Innovative Approaches

48.     Innovative ways of providing open space and/or opportunities for recreation activities in urban areas are not limited to road reserves or unformed paper roads.

49.     The Auckland Plan 2050 Homes and Places outcome (in Direction 4) states “we need to think differently about what we consider to be a public place and how we conceive its use. We also need to think differently about how we design and deliver them”.

50.     There are a number of examples of innovative ways of providing open space and recreational opportunities in Auckland, other parts of New Zealand and overseas. Attachment G provides some examples of these. Existing mechanisms such as greenway plans, open space network plans, area plans, centre plans, structure plans and “regeneration plans” can be used to explore innovative responses to the need for additional open space/recreation facilities, particularly in established urban areas.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Different Options

51.     Attachment H identifies possible options associated with converting road reserve, unformed legal roads and pedestrian accessways to open space and assesses the advantages and disadvantages. The three scenarios discussed at the Planning Committee meeting of 7 August 2018 are assessed. These are:

·    Road ends (which are effectively the end portions of road reserve or unformed legal roads);

·    Paper roads (or unformed legal roads); and

·    Pedestrian accessways.

52.     Attachment H also provides an initial scoping of likely costs and benefits. If a plan change was to be pursued, a more detailed section 32 report of the costs and benefits would need to be prepared.

53.     In summary, the key advantages of zoning unformed legal roads to open space potentially are:

·    secures additional open space; and

·    there is a positive public perception associated with adding/securing additional open space.

54.     The key disadvantages could potentially be:

·    the costs of the process of stopping roads (if they are to be stopped);

·    the possibility of Environment Court costs and delays if road stopping is appealed;

·    in some cases, unformed legal roads provide access to adjacent private land, so access would need to be maintained;

·    stopped roads may need to be offered back to the former land owner under the Public Works Act 1981;

·    issue of maintenance responsibility (e.g. Auckland Transport or Parks);

·    an open space zoning is generally more enabling than road reserve (in terms of allowing buildings and structures) so there could be opposition to any rezoning from potentially affected persons.


 

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

Views of Auckland Transport

55.     All roads, including unformed roads are ‘owned’ by Auckland Council.  Auckland Transport, as the road controlling authority, manages the road network for Auckland Council.  If the function of a road, including unformed roads, is to change, Auckland Transport would need to support this change in function.  If an unformed road was to be used for a public access purpose, like a pedestrian way/cycleway – this would not be a change of function – but there would be funding needed to develop unformed roads for this type of public access.

56.     Auckland Transport agree that there are opportunities to convert some road reserve and unformed legal road (paper roads) into open space, particularly in coastal areas. These would need to be considered on a case by case basis however. They do advise that road stopping is a difficult and expensive process and are of the view that a joined up cross-Council management approach, without the “stopping of roads” may be able to achieve the same outcomes. There are some areas where Auckland Transport would not support conversions of road reserve to open space e.g. in future urban areas.

Views of Auckland Council Parks and Recreation Policy Unit

57.     Auckland Council Parks and Recreation Policy Unit also agree that there are opportunities via road reserve and unformed legal road to expand and enhance the open space network. These are being identified through the development of open space network plans and greenway plans. In addition, an evaluation of the network plans in the future will be able to identify further opportunities. Parks and Recreation Policy are of the view there is not a great deal of value in closing unformed legal roads where they are located in existing parks and already have an open space zoning as there is no impact in terms of additional open space. They also advise that the New Zealand Walking Access Commission frequently utilises unformed legal roads to develop walking and cycling trails.

58.     Parks and Recreation Policy are comfortable with the current approach to pedestrian accessways whereby those that link roads are shown as “road” and those that link to open space/parks have the same zoning as the park/open space. They point out that should pedestrian accessways linking roads be converted to open space this may raise maintenance issues for parks.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

59.     Consultation has not yet occurred with local boards. If the recommendations of this report are supported, consultation would occur with the respective local boards through the development, implementation and future review of greenway plans, open space network plans and structure plans.

60.     Representatives of the Devonport-Takapuna and Hibiscus and Bays Local Boards attended a workshop on the issue of converting road reserve and unformed legal road to open space. Email correspondence was also received from the Albert Eden Local Board. The key point made by all three boards was the need to ensure that where road reserve and unformed legal road is utilised as open space and/or for recreation purposes, this is in addition to the normal open space provision standards for a local board area.


 

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

61.     Any proposed road stopping would involve engagement with iwi.

62.     Under section 41 of the Public Works Act 1981, where former Māori land is not required for a public work it must be offered back to the former owner(s).

63.     Also under section 40 of that act, where land is no longer required for a public work it must be offered back to the former land owner or their successors. If that owner does not want the land it potentially becomes available for Treaty Settlements and iwi have the first right of refusal.

64.     Māori are also potentially impacted through the development of greenway, open space network and structure plans. The development of these plans includes engagement with relevant iwi.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

65.     Costs are associated with any road closure and/or plan change process, including possible appeal costs and opportunity costs (loss of the opportunity for council officers to work on other projects). These costs need to be considered alongside the benefits.

66.     In addition, the Finance Department advises that the transfer of road reserve to open space would need to be paid for by Parks at net book value.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

67.     A number of greenway plans, open space network plans and structure plans have been completed recently. If these planning tools are the primary means by which additional open space opportunities are identified and they did not explore or identify all options, there is a risk that opportunities to secure additional open space by way of road reserve and/or unformed legal roads will not be realised for some time when these plans are next reviewed.

68.     Any “global approach” to converting road reserve or unformed legal road to open space could potentially overlook local and site specific issues. Assessing these opportunities on a case by case basis will enable potential advantages and disadvantages to be identified.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

69.     An initial assessment of converting unformed legal road and/or pedestrian accessway to an open space zone indicates there are both advantages and disadvantages. The exact nature and degree of these will depend on the context. They therefore need to be looked at on a case by case basis. 

70.     Auckland Council already has suitable mechanisms and processes underway - greenway plans, open space network plans and structure plans, for identifying opportunities for additional open space across local board areas (see Attachment I for examples). These planning processes already include the assessment of whether road reserve or unformed legal roads could be appropriately converted to or used as open space. The implementation of these plans is the next step in the process. Other innovative approaches to securing open space could also be explored.

71.     Auckland Transport would need to be closely involved in any proposal to convert unformed legal roads to open space as they are the road controlling authority on behalf of Auckland Council.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Local Government Act 1974 (Roading Stopping)

41

b

Examples of the Different Ways Unformed Legal Roads and Pedestrian Accessways are Dealt With in the Auckland Unitary Plan

45

c

Map of Unformed Legal Roads

53

d

Auckland Plan 2050 - Outcomes, Focus Areas and Directions Relating to Open Space

55

e

Parks Acquisition Strategies and Policies

57

f

Examples From Other Cities of Road Reserve/Closed Roads Being Converted to or Considered as Open Space

61

g

Examples of Innovative Ways of Providing Open Space and Recreational Opportunities

63

h

Options, Advantages and Disadvantages of Converting Road Reserve, Unformed Legal Road and Pedestrian Accessways to Open Space

77

i

Greenway and Open Space Network Plan Examples

79

j

The Current Status of Open Space Network Plans for the Auckland Region's Local Boards

83

k

The Status of Greenway Plans for Each Local Board Area

85

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Tony Reidy - Team Leader Planning

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

02 April 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

02 April 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

02 April 2019

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

02 April 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

02 April 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

02 April 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

02 April 2019

 

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

02 April 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

02 April 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

02 April 2019

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

02 April 2019

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

02 April 2019

 

Proposed plan change to re-order and undertake technical corrections to Schedule 10 – Notable Trees Schedule and the corresponding mapped overlay

File No.: CP2019/00843

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek approval to publicly notify a change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) to re-order and correct technical errors in Schedule 10 – Notable Trees Schedule and the corresponding mapped overlay.  

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       In March 2017, the Planning Committee agreed to a plan change to amend errors in Schedule 10 – Notable Trees Schedule (the schedule) (Resolution number PLA/2017/40). Between March 2017 and the present time, council staff have worked to identify these errors and inconsistencies. 

3.       The key objectives of the proposed plan change are to re-order the schedule to improve its legibility and usability, amend the identified errors and inconsistencies and improve the accuracy of the mapped overlay. 

4.       The specific errors and issues addressed as part of the plan change include typographical errors, updating the schedule where listed trees no longer exist and amending inaccuracies in addresses where subdivision has altered the address of a listed tree or trees.  

5.       The scope of the plan change is narrow and limited to re-ordering the schedule and correcting technical errors therein. It does not seek to introduce any new objectives, policies, rules, zoning, or other methods relevant to Chapter D13 (Notable Trees Overlay) or to any other parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan. 

6.       Given the number of maps associated with the plan change (approximately 3000), an online portal is proposed instead of publication of PDFs. This will assist users to readily search an address instead of having to look through a large number of PDFs which are not easily searchable. A link will be made available as part of the plan change documents at the time of public notification. 

7.       The addition, re-evaluation of or removal of trees listed in the schedule (apart from those known to have been removed) is out of scope of the plan change. Any nominations of trees or re-evaluations of trees currently listed on the schedule would need to be subject to a future plan change.

8.       ‘Opening up’ the Schedule to a full review for additions, deletions and re-evaluations would require a significant amount of resources and a timeframe of at least 2-4 years, depending on the number of submissions and further submissions received. In the meantime, the errors and inconsistencies would remain. It is therefore appropriate that an administrative plan change to address the usability and accuracy of the schedule and a full review of it are treated as two separate issues. 

9.       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 A.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)       approve the notification of the proposed plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) to re-order and correct technical errors and anomalies in Schedule 10 – Notable Trees included as Attachments B and C of the agenda report;

b)       endorse the section 32 evaluation report contained as Attachment A to the agenda report; and

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

 

 

Horopaki

Context

10.     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 identified a number of technical errors within the schedule. 

11.     In March 2017, the Planning Committee approved a plan change to amend errors in the schedule (Resolution number PLA/2017/40).

12.     Staff have since systematically worked through the schedule and the mapped overlay to identify technical errors and inconsistencies. The majority of these are minor and resulted from irregularities created when all legacy council schedules were amalgamated into the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part).

13.     Other issues identified include the need to update the schedule where a listed tree or trees have been removed as a result of a resource consent, or where the listed address of a listed tree has changed as a result of a subdivision. In addition, the readability of the schedule was considered to require improvement in terms of the way in which trees are itemised. The mapped overlay also required improvement in accuracy and usability to show locations of trees or groups of trees where these are known.

14.     These errors, inconsistencies and ambiguities can create confusion and doubt for users (i.e. consents staff, the public and consultants) which in turn impacts the integrity and functionality of the Auckland Unitary Plan. Consequentially, this may lead to incorrect assumptions about the protected status of notable trees. 

15.     The key objectives of the plan change are to re-order the schedule to improve its legibility, amend the errors which have been identified therein, and improve the accuracy of the mapped overlay.

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 A) determined that of the two options identified, a plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan is the most appropriate option. This will ensure the trees are protected and managed appropriately through the schedule and the corresponding mapped overlay. For the Notable Trees Overlay to be efficient and effective, the schedule and the GIS viewer must be as up to date and free of errors as possible, as well as being structured in a way that maximises their use and readability. 


 

18.     In summary, the section 32 evaluation report found that the plan change:

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

19.     The scope of the plan change has a narrow focus and is limited to technical errors, inconsistencies, structure and improvements to the mapped overlay.

20.     In-scope changes include the following:

·    updating the schedule to remove listed trees that are no longer present;

·    updating addresses where subdivisions have altered the address (street number, lot and deposited plan number) of a listed tree or group of trees;

·    improving the legibility to ensure that descriptions, address convention and numbering are consistent throughout;

·    re-organising the schedule into district and alphabetically by street name to improve users’ ability to identify locations of listed trees;

·    amending typographical errors (such as incorrect botanical and/or common names);

·    clarifying and amending inconsistency between columns of information in the schedule; and

·    where the locations of trees or groups of trees are known, amendments to the mapped overlay will be undertaken to show these locations more accurately (replacing the current green triangle which appears by default in the middle of the property parcel).

21.     A methodology was developed to systematically review the schedule for errors and inconsistencies. This involved predominantly a desktop exercise that analysed (line by line) the individual entries in the schedule. The following were identified using a variety of desktop tools, some site visits and information held in the council database:

·    text errors, typographical errors (such as incorrect species names, missing botanical names etc);

·    accuracy of lot and deposited plan descriptions;

·    incorrect locations of trees or groups of trees;

·    numbers of trees inaccurately described;

·    identification of properties remaining affected by the overlay when the tree/trees had been removed; and

·    duplication or multiple entries.

22.     The mapped overlay was similarly systematically reviewed to improve the detail of the location of a tree or trees. Where these were able to be confirmed, a revised symbology indicates the location of the tree/s. Where there remains ambiguity about actual location, the existing notation (in the middle of the property parcel) remains unchanged, indicating the presence of a notable tree or trees.

23.     It is intended that the schedule be notified in its re-ordered state and the changes therein marked up with strike-through and underline. An extract from the revised schedule is included at Attachment B. This is provided as a sample of the marked-up schedule to indicate the range and extent of amendments proposed as part of the plan change.

24.     While errors and inconsistencies have now been identified, the detailed work to mark up the revised schedule will progressively take place over the next few weeks prior to notification. Given the detailed administrative task to mark up almost 3000 line items, it is anticipated that the final proposed schedule will be subject to approval of the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee and an Independent Māori Statutory Board Member prior to notification.

25.     An online portal is being developed as part of the notification documents to enable the public to view the changes to the maps. An example of this is included at Attachment C. The advantage of the portal is that it replaces the need to publish almost 3000 PDFs which show proposed changes to the maps. This large number of PDFs would create difficulty for users and potential submitters in that they cannot be readily searched. By using the online portal (which is similar in its functionality to the Auckland Unitary Plan GIS viewer), users will be able to search by address and clearly see the before and after changes. These can also be readily printed if required.

26.     Out of scope changes are:

·    the addition of new trees or groups of trees to the schedule;

·    the removal of trees from the schedule (other than where it is confirmed that a listed tree or tree no longer exists);

·    re-evaluation of any tree or group of trees listed in the schedule;

·    amendments to the objectives or policy framework or to the rules relating to the Notable Trees Schedule (the policy approach to notable trees, its purpose and function remains unchanged); and

·    re-visitation of previous plan changes undertaken by legacy councils which developed the schedules of notable trees which were subsequently ‘rolled over’ to the operative Schedule 10 in the AUP.

27.     Additions through nominations, deletions and re-evaluations or amendments to the policy approach for notable trees would need to be subject to a future plan change.  A full schedule review to include additions, deletions and re-evaluations would require significant resourcing and a timeframe of 2-4 years depending on the number of submissions, further submissions and the length of time to evaluate all new nominations.  In the meantime, the errors and inconsistencies would remain. It is therefore appropriate that an administrative plan change to address the usability and accuracy of the schedule and a full review of it are treated as two separate issues. 

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

28.     Council-controlled organisations, statutory bodies and internal departments were sent memorandums on 7 March 2019 to inform them of the plan change. No direct consultation was undertaken with these bodies given the limited scope of the plan change and that it does not result in any policy changes.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

29.     Due to the administrative focus of the plan change and because no policy changes are proposed, limited consultation was undertaken with local boards on its development. A memo was sent to all local boards on 6 March 2019 to advise on the proposed plan change and to invite feedback. A further memo will be sent prior to notification to provide local boards with the full plan change documents.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

30.     The proposed plan change is administrative in focus and does not result in any policy or rule changes which affect Māori in a greater way than the general public.

31.     The Resource Legislation Amendment Act 2017 made changes to Māori participation within the Act. Schedule 1 of the Act was amended to insert clause 4A which requires councils to provide a copy of a draft proposed plan change prior to public notification and have particular regard to any advice received from iwi before notifying the plan.

32.     A memorandum was sent on 6 March 2019 to all 19 iwi authorities that are recorded by council as being associated with the Auckland region. The memorandum provided an explanation of the proposed plan change and advised that draft plan change documents would be made available prior to notification.

33.     Any feedback received from iwi authorities will be incorporated into the evaluation report of the proposed plan change.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

34.     The costs of the plan change process are within the Plans and Places Department’s operating budget.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

35.     There are risks associated with not addressing the identified technical errors and inconsistencies in the schedule or improving the order of the schedule itself. These issues and anomalies may result in incorrect assumptions about the protection of notable trees and therefore have a negative impact on the functionality and integrity of the Unitary Plan.

36.     There are no material risks associated with undertaking the proposed plan changes to the Unitary Plan. 

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

37.     If approval is obtained to notify the plan change, it is anticipated that notification will occur in late May 2019.


 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Section 32 Evaluation report

93

b

Extract from proposed schedule indicating range of amendments

117

c

Example of mapped overlay enhancement for Notable Trees overlay

119

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Ruth Andrews - Principal Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

02 April 2019

 

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

02 April 2019

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

02 April 2019

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

02 April 2019

 

Proposed Plan Change Amendments to Historic Heritage Schedule 14

File No.: CP2019/01733

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To approve for public notification a plan change to amend the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (AUP) Chapter L, Schedule 14.1 Historic Heritage Schedule, Statements and Maps.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       This report considers the notification of a plan change to amend 73 historic heritage places in Schedule 14.1 Schedule of Historic Heritage (Schedule 14.1) to:

·    correct errors and update information and, for some places,

·    amend the Historic Heritage Overlay extent of place shown in the AUP planning maps (plan maps) to correct errors.

3.       The amendments proposed include the deletion of 11 places from Schedule 14.1.

4.       The reason for these amendments is to ensure Schedule 14.1 is accurate and robust.

5.       The errors and outdated information relating to historic heritage places in the AUP have the potential to put Auckland’s significant historic heritage at risk or to impose unnecessary costs to landowners and the council.

6.       It is recommended the plan change is notified for submissions.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)          approve the notification of the plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) to amend 73 historic heritage places in Schedule 14.1 to correct errors and update information, included as Attachments A and B to the agenda report.

b)          endorse the section 32 evaluation report included as Attachment C 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 approve minor amendments to the proposed plan change, if required, in advance of public notification.

 

 


 

Horopaki

Context

7.       The AUP contains objectives, policies and rules to protect significant historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use and development. The AUP method to achieve this protection is focused on Schedule 14, which identifies and recognises significant historic heritage places, and applies the provisions of the Historic Heritage Overlay[1] to these places.

8.       Significant historic heritage places are identified in Schedule 14.1 and the Historic Heritage Overlay extent of place for each place is shown on the plan maps. The extent of place identifies the spatial area for each place where the provisions of the Historic Heritage Overlay apply.

9.       Schedule 14.1 contains errors and outdated information for some historic heritage places. The extent of place for some scheduled historic heritage places is not mapped over the correct area or is missing.

10.     In 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 AUP.

That the Governing Body:

a)       direct the Chief Executive to initiate a process for relevant plan changes to address any further technical matters and property anomalies relating to the Auckland Unitary Plan and report back to the incoming Council, no later than March 2017. (Resolution Number GB/2016/201)

11.     Following that resolution, the Planning Committee agreed a process to correct administrative errors in the AUP and noted that other plan changes may be required to address matters outside the scope of an administrative plan change.

That the Planning Committee:

a)       agree to develop the first administrative plan change to correct technical matters and anomalies identified in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part).

d)       note the possibility that future plan change/s may be required to address matters that are outside the scope of the first administrative plan change to enable the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) to be effective.
(Resolution Number PLA/2017/40)

12.     The first administrative plan change (Plan Change 4: Corrections to technical errors and anomalies in the Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in part) was notified in September 2017. This plan change corrected errors and anomalies for 21 historic heritage places in Schedule 14.1.

13.     Historic heritage places with errors outside the scope of Plan Change 4 were the subject of Plan Change 10: Historic Heritage Schedule (errors, anomalies and information update). Plan Change 10, which was notified on 25 January 2018, corrected errors, updated information and/or amended the extent of place maps for 145 places in Schedule 14.

14.     Not all known errors in the AUP that related to scheduled historic heritage places were corrected in Plan Change 10. Council staff and the public have also identified further errors relating to historic heritage places in the AUP since Plan Change 10 was notified. It is anticipated that errors relating to scheduled historic heritage places in the AUP will continue to be identified over time, and will require correction through future plan change processes. It is also expected that further evaluation of scheduled historic heritage places will result in information in Schedule 14.1 requiring to be updated over time.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

15.     There is an issue with the identification of significant historic heritage places in the AUP, being that for some historic heritage places there are errors and outdated information in Schedule 14.1 and/or the Historic Heritage Overlay extent of place shown in the plan maps.

16.     The plan change seeks to correct errors and update information for 73 historic heritage places in the AUP, by amending information in Schedule 14.1 and/or the Historic Heritage Overlay extent of place maps. The errors include:

·    the Historic Heritage Overlay extent of place (shown in the plan maps) is incorrect, or there is no extent of place mapped;

·    the address and/or legal description is incorrect, or the legal description is missing;

·    there is no primary feature identified (the primary feature of a historic heritage place forms the fundamental basis for scheduling a place);

·    the category of the place is not correct, or requires updating to reflect up-to-date information;

·    exclusions are not identified, are incomplete, or are incorrect (exclusions are features that do not contribute to, or detract from, a historic heritage place);

·    a place has duplicate entries in Schedule 14.1; and

·    the place does not meet the criteria and thresholds for scheduling in the AUP and should be deleted from Schedule 14.1.

17.     Errors and outdated information in the AUP can lead to the loss of Auckland’s significant historic heritage places, if these places are not accurately identified and described in Schedule 14.1 and/or the extent of place maps. Alternatively, errors and outdated information can also lead to costs being unnecessarily imposed on owners, where consent is required for activities but the historic heritage values of the place do not warrant the protection offered by the objectives, policies and rules in the AUP.

18.     The plan change is similar in content to Plan Change 10, which amended 145 historic heritage places in the AUP. However, this plan change content differs from Plan Change 10 as it proposes to delete some historic heritage places from Schedule 14.1.

Deletions

19.     The plan change proposes to delete 11 places and one record from Schedule 14.1, including:

·    one place that is a duplicate record

·    two places that were damaged by fire and subsequently demolished via resource consent, and

·    nine places that do not meet the criteria and thresholds in the Regional Policy Statement (RPS) section of the AUP for inclusion in Schedule 14.1[2].

20.     The No Deposit Piano Company Building 301-317 Queen Street has been removed from the schedule as it is a duplicate record.

21.     The two places damaged by fire and subsequently demolished are:

·    Waiwera Bath House, 37 Waiwera Place Waiwera Beach

·    Residence at 79 Coronation Road, Mangere Bridge


 

22.     As part of the preparation of this plan change, a number of historic heritage places were reviewed to determine whether they continue to meet the RPS criteria and thresholds for scheduling. These places were identified for review following:

·    council historic heritage monitoring projects,

·    a resource consent application relating to the historic heritage place, or

·    a request by the owner of the property.  

23.     The following nine historic heritage places were reviewed and were found not to meet the criteria and thresholds in the RPS.  

·    Residence 62 Ferry Parade, Herald Island

·    Residence 651 West Coast Road, Oratia

·    Residence 33 Akehurst Avenue, New Lynn

·    Residence 141 Park Estate Road, Hingaia

·    Residence (Porthcurnow East) 14 Muritai Road, Milford

·    Residence 79 Coronation Road, Mangere Bridge

·    Residence 1 Beihlers Road, Weymouth

·    Residence 19 William Avenue, Manurewa

·    Residence 11 Alfriston Road, Manurewa

Options

24.     There are two options available to address the issue of errors and outdated information relating to historic heritage places in the AUP: undertake a plan change to the AUP to correct errors and update information for scheduled historic heritage places, or take no action.

25.     It is not considered appropriate to take no action and ignore errors and outdated information in Schedule 14.1 and the extent of place maps, due to the potential loss of significant historic heritage and the potential costs to owners and council highlighted above.

26.     Correcting errors and updating information will assist Council to carry out its functions in order to achieve the purpose of the Resource Management Act 1991 (Act), being to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

27.     Comment has been sought on the plan change from the council group and relevant council- controlled organisations (CCOs) as some of the historic heritage places included in the plan change are located on land owned or managed by the council group and CCOs.

28.     The plan change is likely to assist the council group and CCOs with the management of council-owned land and assets because:   the plan change will ensure any scheduled historic heritage places located within this land are accurately identified, both within Schedule 14.1 and the Historic Heritage Overlay; the extent of place is mapped on the right location; and the information about each place in Schedule 14.1 is correct.

29.     To date, feedback has been received from Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku) in relation to the proposed plan change. Any feedback received from the council group or other CCOs will be considered, and will be incorporated into the evaluation report for the plan change. 


 

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

30.     The plan change includes scheduled historic heritage places located within 18 local board areas. The identification of significant historic heritage places and their protection from inappropriate subdivision, use and development is of interest to these local boards. Ensuring that the information about the scheduled historic heritage places is correct and up-to-date is anticipated to align with the views of the boards.

31.     Relevant local boards were informed about the plan change, with board members provided information about the proposed amendments and any deletions relevant to their local board area. Feedback has been received from some individual local board members, with no issues raised to date.

32.     Council staff, along with staff from Panuku, attended a meeting with Henderson-Massey Local Board on 12 February 2019, in order to update the local board about the proposed inclusion of ID 00262 Waitakere Civic Centre.

33.     Local boards have a further opportunity to provide their views on the plan change once it is notified. Any views provided by local boards will be considered alongside submissions as part of the hearing and decision process on the plan change.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

34.     The Resource Legislation Amendment Act 2017 made changes to Māori participation within the Act. Schedule 1 of the Act was amended to insert clause 4A which requires councils to provide a copy of a draft proposed plan change prior to public notification and have particular regard to any advice received from iwi before notifying the plan.

35.     The draft plan change was provided to iwi authorities on 1 March 2019. No feedback has been received to date. Any feedback received from iwi authorities will be summarised and incorporated in the evaluation report for the plan change.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

36.     The preparation of a plan change to correct errors and update information in Schedule 14 is provided for in the Plans and Places Department budget, so there are no financial implications for council. The recommendations made in this report do not give rise to any major financial risks.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

37.     There are no significant risks associated with the recommendations made in this report.


 

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

38.     If approved for notification, the plan change will be publicly notified in April or May 2019, in line with the processes in the Act. A period of at least 20 working days will be provided for submissions to be lodged on the plan change. Decisions requested in submissions will be summarised and publicly notified for further submissions.

39.     Once council has received any submissions and further submissions on the plan change, council officers will prepare a report that includes: a summary of submissions; an analysis of all the submissions; and recommendations about which parts of the plan change should be adopted, removed, or modified.

40.     The council will then hold a hearing on the plan change if submitters have indicated they wish to be heard.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

Due to the size and complexity of Attachment B it has been published separately at the following link: http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz > Planning Committee > 2 April 2019 > Attachments

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Amendments to Schedule 14.1

127

b

Amendments to Auckland Unitary Plan Maps (128 pages) (Under Separate Cover)

 

c

Section 32 evaluation report

145

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Emma Rush - Senior Advisor Special Projects

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

02 April 2019

 

PDF Creator



Planning Committee

02 April 2019

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

02 April 2019

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

02 April 2019

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

02 April 2019

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

02 April 2019

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

02 April 2019

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

02 April 2019

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

02 April 2019

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

02 April 2019

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

02 April 2019

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

02 April 2019

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

02 April 2019

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

02 April 2019

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

02 April 2019

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

02 April 2019

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

02 April 2019

 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

02 April 2019

 

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

02 April 2019

 

Receipt of Notice of Appeal to the decision on Orakei Point Private Plan Change (Covering report)

File No.: CP2019/04456

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       This is a late covering report for the above item. The comprehensive agenda report was not available when the agenda went to print and will be provided prior to the 02 April 2019 Planning Committee meeting.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

The recommendations will be provided in the comprehensive agenda report.

 


Planning Committee

02 April 2019

 

Summary of Planning Committee information memos and briefings - 2 April 2019

File No.: CP2019/03493

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

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:

·    Planning Committee workshop schedule April 2019 (Attachment A)

·    Auckland Monthly Housing Update March 2019 (Attachment B)

4.       The following memos are attached:

·    28 February 2019 – Decision-making under clause 25, Schedule 1 to the RMA (Attachment C)

·    7 March 2019 – Update on the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission – Te Waihanga (Attachment D)

5.       The following letters are attached:

·    4 March 2019 – Auckland’s Draft Venue Development Strategy (Attachment E)

·    21 March 2019 – Black Carbon Levels Queen Street (Attachment F)

6.       The following workshop information is attached:

·    20 February 2019 – Marina principles (Attachment G)

·    6 March 2019 – Changes to the Unitary Plan, Private Plan Change Process and Converting Unformed Legal Roads and Pedestrian Accessways to Open Space (Attachment H)

7.       Note that 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.

8.       The attachments for this report have been published separately at the following link: http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz > Planning Committee > 2 April 2019 > Extra Attachments

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)       receive the Summary of Planning Committee information memos and briefings – 2 April 2019.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Planning Committee workshop schedule April 2019 (Under Separate Cover)

 

b

Auckland Monthly Housing Update March 2019 (Under Separate Cover)

 

c

Memo on Decision-making under clause 25, Schedule 1 to the RMA (Under Separate Cover)

 

d

Memo on Update on the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission – Te Waihanga (Under Separate Cover)

 

e

4 March letter to stakeholders about Auckland’s Draft Venue Development Strategy (Under Separate Cover)

 

f

21 March letter from Auckland Transport about black carbon levels on Queen Street (Under Separate Cover)

 

g

Marina Principles workshop minutes (Under Separate Cover)

 

h

Changes to the Unitary Plan, Private Plan Change Process and Converting Unformed Legal Roads and Pedestrian Accessways to Open Space workshop minutes  (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kalinda Gopal - Senior Governance Advisor

Authoriser

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

      

 


Planning Committee

02 April 2019

 

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

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        Orakei Point Private Plan Change – Notice of Appeal (Covering report)

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

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

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

s7(2)(c)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to damage the public interest.

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

In particular, the report contains recommendations on legal and financial matters concerning an appeal to the Environment Court under the Resource Management Act.

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] AUP Chapter D17 Historic Heritage Overlay

[2] AUP RPS Policy B5.2.2(3)