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
There are no
minutes to confirm.
4 Petitions
At the close of
the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.
5 Public Input
Standing Order
3.21 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to the
Committee Secretary, in writing, no later than two (2) working days
prior to the meeting and must include the subject matter. The meeting
Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the
requirements of Standing Orders. A maximum of thirty (30) minutes is
allocated to the period for public input with five (5) minutes speaking
time for each speaker.
At the close of
the agenda no requests for public input had been received.
6 Local Board Input
Standing Order
3.22 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 two (2) days 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 3.9.14 to speak to matters on the
agenda.
At the close of
the agenda no requests for local board input had been received.
7 Extraordinary Business
Section 46A(7)
of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended)
states:
“An item that is
not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-
(a) The local authority by resolution so decides; and
(b) The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time
when it is open to the public,-
(i) The
reason why the item is not on the agenda; and
(ii) The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be
delayed until a subsequent meeting.”
Section 46A(7A)
of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended)
states:
“Where an item
is not on the agenda for a meeting,-
(a) That item may be discussed at that meeting if-
(i) That item is a minor matter relating to the general
business of the local authority; and
(ii) the presiding member explains at the beginning of the
meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be
discussed at the meeting; but
(b) no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in
respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the
local authority for further discussion.”
8 Notices of Motion
At the close of
the agenda no requests for notices of motion had been received.
|
Unitary Plan
Committee
25 February
2014
|
|
Auckland
Council submission to the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan 2013
File No.:
CP2014/00897
Purpose
1. To seek agreement to a draft version of a whole of council
submission to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) and endorse its
reporting to the Governing Body for final approval and lodgement prior to the
close of submissions on 28 February 2014.
Executive
Summary
2. The PAUP was
notified for submissions on 30 September 2013. Submissions close on 28
February 2014.
3. Staff from
across the orgnisation were given the opportunity to put forward potential
amendments to include in a council submission on the PAUP. The clear brief was
to identify errors, minor policy refinements and new material (eg plan changes
to the operative plans that had reached the decision stage since the PAUP was
notified), but not shifts in policy direction.
4. Since the
notification of the PAUP, extensive discussion has also taken place between
council officers and staff from the Council-controlled Organisations (CCOs), in
an effort to ensure any concerns they might have with the PAUP can be addressed
through the council’s submission. The CCOs were given the opportunity to speak
directly to the Unitary Plan Committee on 29 January 2014.
5. The draft
submission (under separate cover) reflects the outcomes of Auckland Unitary
Plan Committee workshops held on 19, 22 and 26 November 2013, 10 December 2013,
29 January 2014 and 11-12 February 2014.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Unitary Plan Committee:
a) endorse the draft submission to the Proposed Auckland Unitary
Plan as outlined in Attachment A to the report, subject to the following:
i) amend the submission to refer to the need for a
Significant Ecological Area to be applied to Kawau Island, but remove the map
from the submission.
ii) add
the following to the list of properties that should be rezoned:
|
Address
|
Amendment
|
Reasons
|
|
85-87 Gladstone Road, Parnell
|
Rezone from Public Open Space –
Informal Recreation to Public Open Space - Community
|
Incorrect Public Open Space zone
applied in the PAUP.
|
|
5 Hobson Place, Waiuku
|
Rezone from Public Open Space –
Informal Recreation to Light Industry
|
The site is predominantly zoned Light
Industry. A small portion has been incorrectly zoned Public Open Space. The
area of land in question is part of the main site and has no public open
space characteristics.
|
|
23 Commercial Road, Helensville
|
Rezone from Public Open Space – Sport
and Active Recreation to Public Open Space - Community
|
Incorrect Public Open Space zone
applied in the PAUP.
|
|
4 Taikata Road, Te Atutu Peninsula
|
Rezone from Mixed Housing Urban to Town
Centre
|
The site is used solely for vehicle
access to the adjacent Town Centre zoned sites.
|
iii) Add the following items to the
submission:
|
Overlay
|
Provision
|
Amendment
|
Reasons
|
|
Sites and Places of
Significance to Mana Whenua
|
J5.1 Activity Table
|
Remove earthworks control from the
activity table:
Earthworks on or within 50m of
a scheduled site or place of significance to Mana
Whenua D
|
There is a conflict in the activity
status between the Sites and Places of
Significance to Mana Whenua overlay and the Auckland-wide rules for
earthworks on and around sites of significance to Mana Whenua. Relying on
the Auckland-wide rules, which provide a 20 metre buffer, is appropriate.
|
|
Sites and Places of
Value to Mana Whenua
|
J5.2 Activity Table
|
Add a new row in the activity table:
Earthworks for the operation, repair
and maintenance of existing network utilities. P
|
To permit earthworks associated with
the operation, repair and maintenance of a network utilities, subject to
appropriate standards.
|
|
Sites and Places of
Value to Mana Whenua
|
J5.2 Development
Controls
|
Add a new development control 2.7
Earthworks for the operation,
repair and maintenance of existing network utilities.
The permitted activity controls for
earthworks for the operation, repair and maintenance of existing network
utilities contained in H4.2.1 (Auckland wide earthworks controls) apply.
|
To permit earthworks associated with
the operation, repair and maintenance of network utilities, subject to
appropriate standards.
|
|
Not applicable
|
Chapter H: 4.2 Earthworks – 2.1.1.10
|
Replace existing clause 10 with the
following:
In relation to historic heritage
places and sites and places of significance to Mana Whenua, where the
‘extent of place’ is not mapped, earthworks must be located at least 20m
from any scheduled historic heritage place or scheduled sites and places of
significance to Mana Whenua.
|
Firstly, it avoids the current
duplication between the Auckland-wide earthworks rules and the rules for
sites and places of significance to Mana Whenua.
Secondly, it clarifies that a 20 metre
buffer applies (as opposed to 50 metres).
Thirdly, it
clarifies that the 20 metre buffer for scheduled historic heritage places
does not apply beyond the ‘extent of place’, where this has been mapped.
Most buildings have an ‘extent of place’ mapped to the property boundary.
|
b) recommend
the draft submission to the Governing Body meeting on 27 February 2014, for
its adoption as Auckland Council’s submission on the Proposed Auckland
Unitary Plan.
|
Discussion
Background
6. The council’s
goal to create a robust, high-quality Unitary Plan that Aucklanders understand
and support is being achieved through an enhanced engagement programme that was adopted by the Auckland
Plan Committee in July 2012.
7. Phase One of
the enhanced engagement programme ran from August to December 2012 and involved engagement with local
boards, key stakeholders, the Independent Maori Statutory Board (IMSB) and Mana
Whenua. Council staff also held workshops with approximately 150 people from a
variety of sectors. An innovative two week on-line forum, a civic forum hosted
by Te Radar and a civic leaders’ forum also took place.
8. Feedback from
these forums, workshops and events assisted the council in the development of the
draft Auckland Unitary Plan which was released for informal public feedback at
a two day launch event on 15-16 March 2013. This commenced Phase Two of the
enhanced engagement programme (which ran until 31 May 2013) and again involved
a number of innovative events (mobile engagement vehicles, planning clinics and
mini expos) and forums to encourage public involvement. Public involvement was
forthcoming with over 21,000 pieces of feedback received on the draft Auckland
Unitary Plan. This enabled the council to make significant changes to the draft
provisions.
9. While the draft
plan did not have any legal effect under the Resource Management Act (RMA), it
did provide the public with the chance to become more familiar with the
intended provisions for Auckland before formal notification of the PAUP.
10. The Phase Two
draft Auckland Unitary Plan process concluded on 30 September 2013 when the
PAUP was publicly notified and opened for formal submissions through until 28
February 2014.
11. Alongside the
development of the Auckland Unitary Plan, the Government progressed the Local
Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Act 2013. This
legislation put in place provision for a specific hearings process to consider
submissions and make recommendations on changes to the PAUP.
12. In consultation
with the council and the IMSB, the Government appointed the hearings
commissioners in December 2013.
13. The
commissioners are as follows:
· David Kirkpatrick (Chair)
· Des Morrison
· Janet Crawford
· Paula Hunter
· John Kirikiri
· Stuart Shepherd
· Greg Hill
· Peter Fuller
14. This Hearings Panel will hear submissions in
respect of the PAUP, and shall make recommendations to the council regarding
what changes should be made to the PAUP. The council will then decide
whether to accept or reject the Hearings Panel’s recommendations. There
is a right of appeal to the Environment Court by any submitter against any
decision of the council to reject a recommendation of the Hearings Panel.
The council’s decisions to accept recommendations of the Hearings Panel can
only be appealed on points of law, and these appeals are heard by the High
Court. The only exception to this is that appeals can be lodged in
respect of decisions on designations and heritage orders. If there are no
appeals, the PAUP can be made operative in the usual way under clause 20 of
Schedule 1 of the RMA.
Work Programme for Submission
15. One of the
primary purposes of the enhanced engagement process for developing the plan was
to improve the provisions. The opportunity for the council to make a
submission itself on the PAUP to improve the provisions is an opportunity that
officers recommend be taken.
16. It is important
to note that the context for taking the opportunity to make a submission should
be to make refinements to continue improving existing provisions rather than to
make changes in policy direction. The appropriate time to consider substantial
policy matters is once submissions close on PAUP.
17. Starting from
this point, internal departments and CCOs were invited to start identifying any
errors, new material or policy refinements (minor amendments to policy detail
that do not alter the outcomes of the policy approach) that they were aware of.
18. A briefing
workshop was held with the Unitary Plan Committee and local board chairs on 19
November. The outcome of this workshop was a direction to progress the
development of a council submission.
19. Matters for
possible inclusion in the council submission were considered through workshops
on 22, 26 November, 10 December, 29 January and 11-12 February 2014. As well
as matters raised from internal council departments, a number of CCO
representations were made at the workshop on 29 January 2014.
20. Local board
views have been brought through the workshops by the inclusion of all local
board chairs as participants alongside members of the Unitary Plan Committee.
The purpose of this arrangement was to seek the perspectives of local boards on
the council submission. In recognition that some community views from local
boards may need specific mention, provision has been made for these statements
to be clearly identified and included as Part Two of the council submission.
Finalising the draft submission
21. Submissions to
the PAUP are due by 28 February 2014.
22. The attached
draft council submission has been updated to incorporate all workshop direction
provided to officers.
23. It is
recommended that the submission be reported to the Governing Body meeting on
27 February 2014 for formal adoption and lodgement prior to 5pm on 28 February 2014.
Matters that
have arisen since the draft submission was distributed
24. The following
matters have arisen since the draft submission was distributed:
Local Board
Views
25. At the Unitary
Plan Committee workshop on 12 February, a presentation was made in relation to
the draft local board views that had been received from the following local
boards:
· Albert-Eden
· Devonport-Takapuna
· Franklin
· Howick
· Kaipatiki
· Mangere-Otahuhu
· Maungakiekie-Tamaki
· Orakei
· Otara-Papatoetoe
· Papakura
· Puketapapa
· Rodney
26. Since the
workshop, local board views have been received from the Great Barrier Island,
Hibiscus and Bays and Manurewa Local Boards. The views of the Great Barrier
Island and Manurewa Local Boards have once again been reviewed to assess
whether they contain matters that meet the direction from the committee in
relation to the scope of Part One of the council submission (i.e. errors, new
material and policy refinements). Staff are still in the process of reviewing
the views of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board.
27. The matters
raised by the Great Barrier Island Local Board and Manurewa Local Board cover a
range of important issues, however they are not considered to fall within the
scope set out by the Unitary Plan Committee for Part One of the council
submission. They should therefore be included in Part Two (Local Board Views),
as agreed between the Unitary Plan Committee and local boards.
28. The final views
from all local boards that wish their views to be included in Part Two (Local
Board Views) of the council submission are expected to be received prior to the
Governing Body meeting on 27 February 2014. A verbal update will be provided
to the Unitary Plan Committee on 25 February 2014 and at the Governing Body
meeting on 27 February 2014.
29. It is important
to note that once submissions close, where there is no conflict of interest,
local board chairs are able to be involved in the consideration of submissions
on the PAUP that raise local issues. At this stage this work is expected to
commence towards the end of 2014, as the early focus of the Unitary Plan
Committee after the close of submissions is likely to be on Auckland-wide
matters.
Kawau Island
30. A Significant
Ecological Area (SEA) was intended to be placed over Kawau Island in the PAUP,
however the SEA overlay was omitted from the maps in error. The draft
submission includes an amendment to the PAUP to introduce a SEA over the
Island. A map is included as part of the draft submission. A detailed
ecological survey of the Island has not been completed by council ecologists.
It is therefore considered more appropriate that the submission refers to the
need for a SEA to be applied, but that the map is not included in the council
submission.
Auckland
Council Properties Limited
31. Auckland Council
Properties Limited (ACPL) gave a presentation to the Unitary Plan Committee on
a number of council-owned properties it believed should have an alternative
zone to that which has been applied in the PAUP. ACPL alluded to further
research they were undertaking across the council’s property holdings. A
report was recently prepared on behalf of ACPL outlining further possible zone
changes. Having reviewed the report, it is considered that the following
amendments fall within the scope set out for the council submission by the
committee:
|
Address
|
Amendment
|
Reasons
|
|
85-87 Gladstone Road, Parnell
|
Rezone from Public Open Space – Informal
Recreation to Public Open Space - Community
|
Incorrect Public Open Space zone applied
in the PAUP.
|
|
5 Hobson Place, Waiuku
|
Rezone from Public Open Space – Informal
Recreation to Light Industry
|
The site is predominantly zoned Light
Industry. A small portion has been incorrectly zoned Public Open Space. The
area of land in question is part of the main site and has no public open
space characteristics.
|
|
23 Commercial Road, Helensville
|
Rezone from Public Open Space – Sport and
Active Recreation to Public Open Space - Community
|
Incorrect Public Open Space zone applied
in the PAUP.
|
|
4 Taikata Road, Te Atutu Peninsula
|
Rezone from Mixed Housing Urban to Town
Centre
|
The site is used solely for vehicle
access to the adjacent Town Centre zoned sites.
|
Watercare
Services Limited
32. Discussions have
been ongoing with Watercare Services Limited (WSL) to ensure that any concerns
WSL has with the PAUP are addressed through the council submission. A key
concern raised by WSL has been the ability to operate, maintain and repair
existing pipes within the various heritage, landscape and environmental
overlays in the PAUP. Various amendments are included in the draft submission.
The following additional amendments are proposed:
|
Overlay
|
Provision
|
Amendment
|
Reasons
|
|
Sites and Places of
Significance to Mana Whenua
|
J5.1 Activity Table
|
Remove earthworks control from the
activity table:
Earthworks on or within 50m of a
scheduled site or place of significance to Mana Whenua D
|
There is a conflict in the activity
status between the Sites and Places of Significance
to Mana Whenua overlay and the Auckland-wide rules for earthworks on
and around sites of significance to Mana Whenua. Relying on the Auckland-wide
rules, which provide a 20 metre buffer, is appropriate.
|
|
Sites and Places of
Value to Mana Whenua
|
J5.2 Activity Table
|
Add a new row in the activity table:
Earthworks
for the operation, repair and maintenance of existing network utilities. P
|
To permit earthworks associated with the
operation, repair and maintenance of a network utilities, subject to
appropriate standards.
|
|
Sites and Places of
Value to Mana Whenua
|
J5.2 Development
Controls
|
Add a new development control 2.7
Earthworks for the operation,
repair and maintenance of existing network utilities.
The
permitted activity controls for earthworks for the operation, repair and
maintenance of existing network utilities contained in H4.2.1 (Auckland wide
earthworks controls) apply.
|
To permit earthworks associated with the
operation, repair and maintenance of network utilities, subject to
appropriate standards.
|
|
Not applicable
|
Chapter H: 4.2 Earthworks – 2.1.1.10
|
Replace existing clause 10 with the
following:
In relation to historic heritage
places and sites and places of significance to Mana Whenua, where the ‘extent
of place’ is not mapped, earthworks must be located at least 20m from any
scheduled historic heritage place or scheduled sites and places of
significance to Mana Whenua.
|
Firstly, it avoids the current
duplication between the Auckland-wide earthworks rules and the rules for
sites and places of significance to Mana Whenua.
Secondly, it clarifies that a 20 metre
buffer applies (as opposed to 50 metres).
Thirdly, it
clarifies that the 20 metre buffer for scheduled historic heritage places
does not apply beyond the ‘extent of place’, where this has been mapped. Most
buildings have an ‘extent of place’ mapped to the property boundary.
|
Consultation
33. The development
of the council’s own submission to the PAUP has involved input from departments
across the council, CCOs and local boards as described within paragraphs
15-20 above.
Significance
of Decision
34. The decision made by the council
to submit to the PAUP will in many cases ensure an opportunity to ‘front foot’
some issues. Some of these issues are of particular interest to the local
boards, CCOs and other key stakeholders, parties and have been developed
through the ongoing discussions and workshops noted above.
35. The
submission also provides the council with the opportunity to iron out some
errors such as grammar and spelling, cross referencing and linking, numbering
and errors with images (including maps).
36. Clause 6 of the
First Schedule of the RMA provides the council with the ability to make a
submission to the PAUP.
Decision
Making
37. The Governing
Body holds the delegated authority to endorse and lodge submissions to RMA
proposed plans.
Consideration
Local
Board Views
38. Local board
chairs have attended the Unitary Plan Committee workshops to help build the
council’s submission. In addition, local boards have been invited to record
their community views within Part Two of the submission.
Maori
Impact Statement
39. Staff are separately advising Mana Whenua about the content of
Unitary Plan and the process for their submissions. Mana Whenua technical hui
were held on 27 and 28 November 2013 and 29
January 2014 to assist Mana Whenua in navigating the PAUP. It is understood
that Mana Whenua will lodge their submissions by 28 February 2014.
Financial
and Resourcing Implications
40. The submission
is within ongoing operational budgets.
Legal
and Legislative Implications
41. Legal services
were involved in senior management review sessions of matters for possible
inclusion within the council submission. As stated in paragraph 27 above,
Clause 6 (2) to the First Schedule of the RMA expressly provides for the
council to make a submission on its own policy statement or plan.
Attachments
Due to its size
and complexity, the attachment is available under separate cover and available
on the council’s website.
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Phill Reid - Unitary Plan Integration Manager
|
|
Authorisers
|
Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager
|
